₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU:
Then can we describe their condition as a sexual orientation in their own rights?

We can accept that they are "born that way" without having to condone sexual acts with minors.

OLAADEGBU:
The question here is: Are paedophiles "born that way"?

I don't know, but so what if they are?

At least you agree that with paedophilia there is rape involved. What is the equivalent of that rape in homosexuality?

OLAADEGBU:
The world's definition for safe sex that Obama is preaching will only lead to the pit of hell.

What definition is that?

OLAADEGBU:
Statistics prove otherwise.

You have the stats for male homos who don't use the backdoor?

Homosexuality is biblically, psychologically, naturally, physiologically and morally proven to be the wrong choice.

Okay bro. Fortunately it does not affect you personally.

We are just focussing on the first point (disease) here, there are more indices to come.

You should have started with those.

This is why political correctness in the Government, press and public schools can be counter-productive.

I thought you were joking. Can I get any citations?

We can rather wait on the Prince of Peace, repent from our sins, trusting in Him for our salvation and abstain from every evil appearance.

Lol. If you are able to abstain from evil you won't need the Prince of Peace. We are required to sin, and to use protection as we sin.

Lol. OP you nearly got started.

To "exist" is to "be". "is" represents the third person singular present of "be". Therefore, "exist", "be", and "is" mean the same thing. If God exists not, then he is not. No claiming that "he is who he is".

OLAADEGBU:
It's not a problem for the Owner to fix HIV which is only a symptom of the root cause.

The cause of the virus is God.

In any case, if God's action upon coming across male homosexuals was to infect them with HIV rather than fix them, then we can safely bet that he'd sooner infect them with something else than fix them.

Therefore the increasing need for safe sex.

OLAADEGBU:
I think it is the onset to the full blown act.

Or it is a legitimate sexual preference.

I believe that homosexuals are victims of circumstances and the evil world we live in.

We are not on the same page here either.

I agree with you there.

Page sync!

Statistics revealed that the U.K. has the highest rate of teenage unwanted pregnancies and the Government, through "Sex education" teaches that anal sex is the best alternative to contraception.

Loool. You're funny.

Jesus is the solution not the political correct sex education.

Jesus would solve much more than that if he so desired. An end to poverty, immediate and permanent world peace, a cancer vaccine even.

While we wait for him we can, wisely, practice safe sex to reduce the incidence of HIV infections.

OLAADEGBU:
That should rather abstain from having sex altogether until their Owner fixes them.

The problem is HIV. That's what the Owner should fix.

Go and tend to your er.ection, priapus. Don't concern yourself with what others do with theirs.

OLAADEGBU:
This is news to me.

Lol. It is counterintuitive.

The statistics focussed on whether homosexuals are dangerous or beneficial to the society.

The problem is not the person, but how he chooses to have sex.

The statistics don't focus on danger or benefit. It is the article that does that.

This is true as I learnt that our local governments in the UK are now advising teenage girls indirectly to be having anal sex since other means of contraception have failed to stem the tide of unwanted pregnancies.

I don't quite get you.

Statistics do not lie, it says that 2% of the American populace is gay and this accounts for 61% of HIV infection.

The figure for 2013 is 55%. Maybe this year's figure will be even lower. Anyway, the solution does not lie in the direction your article has taken.

OLAADEGBU:
There's no doubt about the fact that homosexuals are the main culprit of reckless sexual behaviour. The fact that 2% of U.S. population is gay and yet it accounts for 61% of HIV infection should tell you who the main culprits are.

They should shun casual sex and use protection more, shouldn't they?

OLAADEGBU:
The question of the OP is simple; Is homosexuality dangerous or beneficial to the society?

Your culprit is reckless sexual behaviour.

It is not possible that Shekau wasn't high there. I wonder if that video is supposed to terrify tho, cos it just seems third rate everything.

OLAADEGBU:
You mean some are not active?

No. I mean there are active gay men who share your revulsion to a.nal. They get off on oral and mutual mas.turbation.

The statistics specifically refer to MSM (Men having sex with men).

Exactly. And yet the article as a whole does not limit itself to MSM.

Which makes them equally dangerous to our society.

I got the impression that you were picking on homosexuals, instead of a.nal sex.

The OP specifically refers to HIV.

HIV is an STD. HIV is transmitted through all forms of sex.

No. You need to read the OP again, it narrows the danger to society down to young male homosexuals.

We combat HIV through the use of the ABC's, not by labelling people as dangerous to society.

superior1:
Everyone decides what is right or wrong and each can refer to his own measurement standard, so it ok even if i decided to apply my religion as a moral compass?

Sometimes, yes. It is not likely that applying your religion will have a justifiable outcome in every situation though. We keep trying to find a meeting point because so far there is a limit to how correct any particular approach is. There are often situations where we are not sure how to act, using whatever ethical approach we have chosen. Recognising these shortcomings leads us to search for an ethical theory that works in hand with our moral compass in every situation to enable us arrive at the best decision.

superior1:
The former

We attempt to reconcile our differences and reach a consensus, failing which we either withhold judgment or use each of our standards to judge.

superior1:
How then do we judge two diverging ethical opinions seeing we do not have a common reference point?

Like how do we decide if an act is good or bad? Or is it how do we decide which way of determining good and bad is the best?

superior1:
Can you state one universally accepted moral ethics?

You mean ethical approach? No.

superior1:
And both ethics are subjective based on the society in question?

I'm finding it hard to understand your question.

superior1:
There cant really be societies without laws, the laws give face to a society. The problem however is that each societies/countries have their own laws which may not be in tandem with others, the issue is how do we determine which laws/behaviors are good, bad and human outside religion?

I will like to get opinions of Atheists on this

Religion applies what is known as deontological ethics, particularly the divine command approach. The divine command approach, as you have correctly guessed, views good behaviour as doing whatever the Divine commands.

The divine command approach is one out of a number of approaches under deontological ethics. Deontological ethics considers good to be the doing of one's duties and respecting the rights of others. Deontological ethics forms much of the basis of our human rights laws.

In addition to deontology, there is also consequentialism and virtue ethics, both of which consist of many approaches. As a whole, consequentialism judges the morality of an act from its consequences while virtue ethics judges the morality of an act from the character of the actor.

So, in the absence of religion, or the divine command approach, we can have recourse to all of the other approaches under deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics.

Where are the exhibits?

Adultery was actually decriminalised in Southern Nigeria is the 60's. It is only in the North that your friends, the Muslims, penalise adultery.

Of course, the Muslims need Jesus in their lives so they'd learn not to judge adulterers.

MizJanet:
Are you saying the billions of buddhist, taoist, judaism, shinto , muslims e.t.c and their little kids ALL OVER THE WORLD will all be roasted for eternity bcoz they dont know Jesus ?

I think he even included the little kids of Christians.

Faaaaake!

KanwuliaJara:
MEN and women have 12 pairs of ribs (a few individuals have 13 or 11 pairs). The idea that men have fewer ribs than women is widespread but wrong, perhaps deriving from the biblical story of Eve being made from one of Adam's ribs.

You are right.

Just last month I had to show one bush girl pictures of a human skeleton so that she would count and see that there are 12 pairs of ribs. She thought that the one which God removed is still missing. Lol.

menesheh:
A god that cannot be define by space, time and matter sent signals through some individuals to only one intelligent animals specie (human), telling them how the world came about the how they can obey or disobey him to make inexplicable heaven or hell.

You don't mean it!

You, not being omniscient yourself, are here claiming that another thing is omniscient. However, you don't want others to deny your claim since they are not omniscient. Lol.

Morality which is defined by God is not true morality. It is subject to redefinition by God.

oluface:
For your mind abi

Looks like a rat.

timonski:
.
You don't really 'own' property in socialist/communist states. I am talking natural human rights here, the rights one is entitled to by virtue of being "human".

Similarly, suicide is not prohibited in the UK, Ireland and Norway. Case closed?

Imagine how messy intellectual property law would be if the right to own property were not a human right. Who would own Achebe's "Things Fall Apart"?

Even more fundamentally, without natural property rights who would own the body you inhabit? What is the basis of your claim to it?

Anyway, I also mentioned the right to liberty. I didn't get your answer on that.

All the chores. I usually need a drink before doing them.