Europeans Invaded Africa and Kidnapped the Slaves

This isn’t meant to trivialize slavery, or pardon any of the people who took part in it, or condone it in any way. But let’s face it: most Americans are under the impression that colonial-era slavery got its start with white people sailing over to Africa, kidnapping hundreds of thousands of people, and bringing them back to Europe and America in chains.
Parts of that are true. There were a lot of chains, and many Africans were certainly kidnapped. But despite the picture painted by many history textbooks, the majority of those slaves were actually sold to Europeans by other African slave traders—slave traders who had been operating on the continent for thousands of years. Slavery is nothing new to the world; it was actually pretty normal around that time. In fact, Egyptians were
using Caucasian slaves in their armies during the thirteenth century . Heck, even the Bible endorsed the practice!
As far as the Atlantic Slave Trade was concerned, in-country African slaves were typically members of a defeated tribe. But as soon as slave traders realized that Europeans would pay for their slaves, they actively began kidnapping people just to sell them on the Nigerian coast.

jovialswag:
Micheal Myers

lol

juvewalex:
You won't be given birth to if your parents were homosexual or lesbians. Bunch of greedy fellows

the idea that every man exists solely for procreation is stupid. Do you know what the world population is today? The world is experiencing a vwy high case of overpopulation that has never been seen before and you fools keep propagating the idea that we should keep breeding like pigs.

Moreover, if it were the case of parents giving birth, then what happen to adoptions and IVF? Help those already alive instead of bringing more into the world

sulasa07:
There is no scientific proof that Osama bin Laden destroyed the Twins Building. All documentaries showed the building was mostly destroyed internaly as if explosives had been placed at the buildings strategic points..

what about video evidence and thousand of eye witness accounts?

Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
World Islamic Front Statement
OSAMA BIN LADEN AND OTHERS*
In February of 1998—three years before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and five years before the U.S. invasion of Iraq—Osama bin Laden (or Usamah Bin-Ladin) and four other radical Islamist leaders issued the statement reprinted on the following pages. This statement purports to be a fatwa, a pronouncement of Islamic law by Islamic scholars, that makes the killing of “Americans and their allies—civilians and military—[a] duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it … ” As the two preceding selections indicate, the roots of radical Islamism are quite deep. In this fatwa, however, bin Laden and the other leaders of the “World Islamic Front” concentrate on more immediate grievances that stemmed from the Persian Gulf War of 1991. Bin Laden was killed by a team of U.S. Navy SEALs in 2011 and buried at sea.

JIHAD AGAINST JEWS AND CRUSADERS
23 February 1998
…
Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
Abu-Yasir Rifa’i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh
Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book [Qur‘an], controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)”; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-’Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.
The Arabian Peninsula has never—since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas—been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.
No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:
First, for over seven years [from the 1991 Gulf War to 1998, when this statement was written] the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people, using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.
Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million … despite all this, the Americans are once again trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
Third, if the Americans’ aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews’ petty state [Israel] and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel’s survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.
All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema [Muslim scholars] have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in “Al-Mughni,” Imam al-Kisa’i in “Al-Bada’i,” al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: “As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life.”
On that basis, and in compliance with Allah’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.”
This is in addition to the words of Almighty Allah: “And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?—women and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!’ ”
We—with Allah’s help—call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.
Almighty Allah said: “O ye who believe, give your response to Allah and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that Allah cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered.”
Almighty Allah also says: “O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things.”
Almighty Allah also says: “So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith.”

Note
_______________
* Source: Translation by the Federation of American Scientists (http://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm). Reprinted by permission of the Federation of American Scientists.

The Ramsey Colloquium commits a similar fallacy.18 Noting (correctly) that heterosexual marriage promotes the continuation of human life, they then infer that homosexuality is immoral because it fails to accomplish the same.19 But from the fact that procreation is good it does not follow that childlessness is bad, a point that the members of the Colloquium, several of whom are Roman Catholic priests, should readily concede.
I have argued that Tommy and Jim’s sexual relationship harms neither them nor society. On the contrary, it benefits both. It benefits them because it makes them happier, not merely in a short-term, hedonistic sense, but in a long-term, “big picture” sort of way. And in turn it benefits society, since it makes Tommy and Jim more stable, more productive, and more generous than they would otherwise be. In short, their relationship, including its sexual component, provides the same kinds of benefits that infertile, heterosexual relationships provide (and perhaps other benefits as well). Nor should we fear that accepting their relationship and others like it will cause people to flee in droves from the institution of heterosexual marriage. After all, as Thomas Williams points out, the usual response to a gay person is not “How come he gets to be gay and I don’t?”20

Conclusion
As a last resort, opponents of homosexuality typically change the subject: “But what about incest, polygamy, and bestiality? If we accept Tommy and Jim’s sexual relationship, why shouldn’t we accept those as well?” Opponents of interracial marriage used a similar slippery-slope argument thirty years ago when the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws.21 It was a bad argument then and it is a bad argument now.
Just because there are no good reasons to oppose interracial or homosexual relationships, it does not follow that there are no good reasons to oppose incestuous, polygamous, or bestial relationships. One might argue, for instance, that incestuous relationships threaten delicate familial bonds, that polygamous relationships result in unhealthy jealousies (and sexism), or that bestial relationships (do I need to say it?) aren’t really “relationships” at all, at least not in the sense we’ve been discussing. Perhaps even better arguments could be offered (given much more space than I have here). The point is that there is no logical connection between homosexuality, on the one hand, and incest, polygamy, and bestiality, on the other.
Why, then, do critics continue to push this objection? Perhaps it’s because accepting homosexuality requires them to give up one of their favorite arguments: “It’s wrong because we’ve always been taught that it’s wrong.” This argument—call it the argument from tradition—has an obvious appeal: People reasonably favor “tried and true” ideas over unfamiliar ones, and they recognize the foolishness of trying to invent morality from scratch. But the argument from tradition is also a dangerous argument, as any honest look at history will reveal.
To recognize Tommy and Jim’s relationship as good is to admit that our moral traditions are imperfect. Condemning people out of habit is easy. Overcoming deep-seated prejudice takes courage.22

Notes

1
Although my central example in the paper is a gay male couple, much of what I say will apply mutatis mutandis to lesbians as well, since many of the same arguments are used against them. This is not to say that gay male sexuality and lesbian sexuality are largely similar or that discussions of the former will cover all that needs to be said about the latter. Furthermore, the fact that I focus on a long-term couple should not be taken to imply any judgment about homosexual activity outside of such unions. If the argument of this paper is successful, then the evaluation of homosexual activity outside of committed unions should be largely (if not entirely) similar to the evaluation of heterosexual activity outside of committed unions.

II. Homosexuality Is Harmful
One might argue, instead, that homosexuality is harmful. The Ramsey Colloquium, for instance, argues that homosexuality leads to the breakdown of the family and, ultimately, of human society, and points to the “alarming rates of sexual promiscuity, depression, and suicide and the ominous presence of AIDS within the homosexual subculture.”7 Thomas Schmidt marshals copious statistics to show that homosexual activity undermines physical and psychological health.8 Such charges, if correct, would seem to provide strong evidence against homosexuality. But are the charges correct? And do they prove what they purport to prove?
One obvious (and obviously problematic) way to answer the first question is to ask people like Tommy and Jim. It would appear that no one is in a better position to judge the homosexual “lifestyle” than those who live it. Yet it is unlikely that critics would trust their testimony. Indeed, the more that homosexual people try to explain their lives, the more critics accuse them of deceitfully promoting an agenda. (It’s like trying to prove that you’re not crazy. The more you object, the more people think, “That’s exactly what a crazy person would say.”)
One might instead turn to statistics. An obvious problem with this tack is that both sides of the debate bring forth extensive statistics and “expert” testimony, leaving the average observer confused. There is a more subtle problem as well. Because of widespread antigay sentiment, many homosexual people will not acknowledge their feelings to themselves, much less to researchers.9 I have known a number of gay men who did not “come out” until their 40s and 50s, and no amount of professional competence on the part of interviewers would have been likely to open their closets sooner. Such problems compound the usual difficulties of finding representative population samples for statistical study.
Yet even if the statistical claims of gay-rights opponents were true, would they prove what they purport to prove? I think not, for the following reasons. First, as any good statistician realizes, correlation does not equal cause. Even if homosexual people were more likely to commit suicide, be promiscuous, or contract AIDS than the general population, it would not follow that their homosexuality causes them to do these things. An alternative and very plausible explanation is that these phenomena, like the disproportionately high crime rates among blacks, are at least partly a function of society’s treatment of the group in question. Suppose you were told from a very early age that the romantic feelings that you experienced were sick, unnatural, and disgusting. Suppose further that expressing these feelings put you at risk of social ostracism or, worse yet, physical violence. Is it not plausible that you would, for instance, be more inclined to depression than you would be without such obstacles? And that such depression could, in its extreme forms, lead to suicide or other self-destructive behaviors? (It is indeed remarkable that in the face of such obstacles couples like Tommy and Jim continue to flourish.)
A similar explanation can be given for the alleged promiscuity of homosexuals.10 The denial of legal marriage, the pressure to remain in the closet, and the overt hostility toward homosexual relationships are all more conducive to transient, clandestine encounters than they are to long-term unions. As a result, that which is challenging enough for heterosexual couples—settling down and building a life together—becomes far more challenging for homosexual couples.
Indeed, there is an interesting tension in the critics’ position here. Opponents of homosexuality commonly claim that “marriage and the family … are fragile institutions in need of careful and continuing support.”11 And they point to the increasing prevalence of divorce and premarital sex among heterosexuals as evidence that such support is declining. Yet they refuse to concede that the complete absence of similar support for homosexual relationships might explain many of the alleged problems of homosexuals. The critics can’t have it both ways: If heterosexual marriages are in trouble despite the various social, economic, and legal incentives for keeping them together, society should be little surprised that homosexual relationships—which not only lack such supports but face overt attack—are difficult to maintain.
One might object that if social ostracism were the main cause of homosexual people’s problems, then homosexual people in more “tolerant” cities like New York and San Francisco should exhibit fewer such problems than their small-town counterparts; yet statistics do not seem to bear this out. This objection underestimates the extent of antigay sentiments in our society. By the time many gay and lesbian people move to urban centers, much damage has already been done to their psyches. Moreover, the visibility of homosexuality in urban centers makes homosexual people there more vulnerable to attack (and thus more likely to exhibit certain difficulties). Finally, note that urbanites in general (not just homosexual urbanites) tend to exhibit higher rates of promiscuity, depression, and sexually transmitted disease than the rest of the population.
But what about AIDS? Opponents of homosexuality sometimes claim that even if homosexual sex is not, strictly speaking, immoral, it is still a bad idea, since it puts people at risk for AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. But that claim is misleading. Note that it is infinitely more risky for Tommy to have sex with a woman who is HIV-positive than with Jim, who is HIV-negative. The reason is simple: It’s not homosexuality that’s harmful, it’s the virus, and the virus may be carried by both heterosexual and homosexual people.
Now it may be the case that in a given population a homosexual male is statistically more likely to carry the virus than a heterosexual female, and thus, from a purely statistical standpoint, male homosexual sex is more risky than heterosexual sex (in cases where the partner’s HIV status is unknown). But surely opponents of homosexuality need something stronger than this statistical claim. For if it is wrong for men to have sex with men because their doing so puts them at a higher AIDS risk than heterosexual sex, then it is also wrong for women to have sex with men because their doing so puts them at a higher AIDS risk than homosexual sex (lesbians as a group have the lowest incidence of AIDS). Purely from the standpoint of AIDS risk, women ought to prefer lesbian sex.
If this response seems silly, it is because there is obviously more to choosing a romantic or sexual partner than determining AIDS risk. And a major part of the decision, one that opponents of homosexuality consistently overlook, is considering whether one can have a mutually fulfilling relationship with the partner. For many people like Tommy and Jim, such fulfillment, which most heterosexuals recognize to be an important component of human flourishing, is only possible with members of the same sex.
Of course, the foregoing argument hinges on the claim that homosexual sex can only cause harm indirectly. Some would object that there are certain activities (anal sex, for instance) that for anatomical reasons are intrinsically harmful. But an argument against anal intercourse is by no means tantamount to an argument against homosexuality: neither all nor only homosexuals engage in anal sex. There are plenty of other things for both gay men and lesbians to do in bed. Indeed, for women, it appears that the most common forms of homosexual activity may be less risky than penile-vaginal intercourse, since the latter has been linked to cervical cancer.12
In sum, there is nothing inherently risky about sex between persons of the same gender. It is only risky under certain conditions: for instance, if they exchange diseased bodily fluids or if they engage in certain “rough” forms of sex that could cause tearing of delicate tissue. Heterosexual sex is equally risky under such conditions. Thus, even if statistical claims like those of Schmidt and the Ramsey Colloquium were true, they would not prove that homosexuality is immoral. At best they would prove that homosexual people, like everyone else, ought to take great care when deciding to become sexually active.
Of course, there’s more to a flourishing life than avoiding harm. One might argue that even if Tommy and Jim are not harming each other by their relationship, they are still failing to achieve the higher level of fulfillment possible in a heterosexual relationship, which is rooted in the complementarity of male and female. But this argument just ignores the facts. Tommy and Jim are homosexual precisely because they find relationships with men (and in particular, with each other) more fulfilling than relationships with women. Even evangelicals (who have long advocated “faith healing” for homosexuals) are beginning to acknowledge that the choice for most homosexual people is not between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships, but rather between homosexual relationships and celibacy.13 What the critics need to show, therefore, is that no matter how loving, committed, mutual, generous, and fulfilling the relationship may be, Tommy and Jim would flourish more if they were celibate. This is a formidable (indeed, probably impossible) task.
Thus far I have focused on the allegation that homosexuality harms those who engage in it. But what about the allegation that homosexuality harms other, nonconsenting parties? Here I will briefly consider two claims: that homosexuality threatens children and that it threatens society.
Those who argue that homosexuality threatens children may mean one of two things. First, they may mean that homosexual people are child molesters. Statistically, the vast majority of reported cases of child sexual abuse involve young girls and their fathers, stepfathers, or other familiar (and presumably heterosexual) adult males.14 But opponents of homosexuality argue that when one adjusts for relative percentages in the population, homosexual males appear more likely than heterosexual males to be child molesters. As I argued above, the problems with obtaining reliable statistics on homosexuality render such calculations difficult. Fortunately, they are also unnecessary.
Child abuse is a terrible thing. But when a heterosexual male molests a child (or rapes a woman, or commits assault), the act does not reflect upon all heterosexuals. Similarly, when a homosexual male molests a child, there is no reason why that act should reflect upon all homosexuals. Sex with adults of the same sex is one thing; sex with children of the same sex is quite another. Conflating the two not only slanders innocent people, it also misdirects resources intended to protect children. Furthermore, many men convicted of molesting young boys are sexually attracted to adult women and report no attraction to adult men.15 To call such men “homosexual” or even “bisexual” is probably to stretch such terms too far.16
Alternatively, those who charge that homosexuality threatens children might mean that the increasing visibility of homosexual relationships makes children more likely to become homosexual. The argument for this view is patently circular. One cannot prove that doing X is bad by arguing that it causes people to do X, which is bad. One must first establish independently that X is bad. That said, there is not a shred of evidence to demonstrate that exposure to homosexuality leads children to become homosexual.
But doesn’t homosexuality threaten society? A Roman Catholic priest once put the argument to me as follows: “Of course homosexuality is bad for society. If everyone were homosexual, there would be no society.”
Perhaps it is true that if everyone were homosexual, there would be no society. But if everyone were a celibate priest, society would collapse just as surely, and my priest-friend didn’t seem to think that he was doing anything wrong simply by failing to procreate. Jeremy Bentham made the point somewhat more acerbically roughly two hundred years ago: “If then merely out of regard to population it were right that [homosexuals] should be burnt alive, monks ought to be roasted alive by a slow fire.”17
From the fact that the continuation of society requires procreation, it does not follow that everyone must procreate. Moreover, even if such an obligation existed, it would not preclude homosexuality. At best it would preclude exclusive homosexuality: Homosexual people who occasionally have heterosexual sex can procreate just fine. And given artificial insemination, even those who are exclusively homosexual can procreate. In short, the priest’s claim—if everyone were homosexual, there would be no society—is false, and even if it were true, it would not establish that homosexuality is immoral.

Homosexuality: The Nature and Harm Arguments
JOHN CORVINO*
One of the aims of the Gay Liberation movement is to enable gays and lesbians to be happy, healthy, contributing members of a society that recognizes and accepts differences in sexual orientation among its members. This requires educating or “raising the consciousness” not only of gay people but of their heterosexual or “straight” neighbors and coworkers as well. In the following essay, the philosopher John Corvino (1969–) confronts and criticizes two mainstays of anti-gay attitudes: the assertions that homosexuality is unnatural and harmful. Like other advocates of Gay Liberation, Corvino believes that confronting their own homophobia—that is, their fear of homosexuals and homosexuality—can lead “gays” and “straights” alike to overcome homophobia’s stunting and stifling effects.

HOMOSEXUALITY: THE NATURE AND HARM ARGUMENTS
Tommy and Jim are a homosexual couple I know. Tommy is an accountant; Jim is a botany professor. They are in their early forties and have been together fourteen years, the last five of which they’ve lived in a Victorian house that they’ve lovingly restored. Though their relationship has had its challenges, each has made sacrifices for the sake of the other’s happiness and the relationship’s long-term success.
I assume that Tommy and Jim have sex with each other (although I’ve never bothered to ask). Furthermore, I suspect that they probably should have sex with each other. For one thing, sex is pleasurable. But it is also much more than that: a sexual relationship can unite two people in a way that virtually nothing else can. It can be an avenue of growth, communication, and lasting interpersonal fulfillment. These are reasons most heterosexual couples have sex even if they don’t want children, don’t want children yet, or don’t want additional children. And if these reasons are good enough for most heterosexual couples, then they should be good enough for Tommy and Jim.
Of course, having a reason to do something does not preclude there being an even better reason for not doing it. Tommy might have a good reason for drinking orange juice (it’s tasty and nutritious) but an even better reason for not doing so (he’s allergic). The point is that one would need a pretty good reason for denying a sexual relationship to Tommy and Jim, given the intense benefits widely associated with such relationships. The question I shall consider in this paper is thus quite simple: Why shouldn’t Tommy and Jim have sex?1

I. Homosexuality Is Unnatural
Many contend that homosexual sex is “unnatural.” But what does that mean? Many things that people value—clothing, houses, medicine, and government, for example—are unnatural in some sense. On the other hand, many things that people detest—disease, suffering, and death, for example—are natural in some sense (after all, they occur “in nature”). If the unnaturalness charge is to be more than empty rhetorical flourish, those who levy it must specify what they mean. Borrowing from Burton Leiser, I will examine several possibilities.2

1
What is unusual or abnormal is unnatural. One meaning of “unnatural” refers to that which deviates from the norm, that is, from what most people do. Obviously, most people engage in heterosexual relationships. But does it follow that it is wrong to engage in homosexual relationships? Relatively few people read Sanskrit, pilot ships, play the mandolin, breed goats, or write with both hands, yet none of these activities is immoral simply because it is unusual. As the Ramsey Colloquium, a group of Jewish and Christian scholars who oppose homosexuality, write, “The statistical frequency of an act does not determine its moral status.”3 So while homosexuality might be “unnatural” in the sense of being unusual, that fact is morally irrelevant.

2
What is not practiced by other animals is unnatural. Some people argue, “Even animals know better than to behave homosexually; homosexuality must be wrong.” This argument is doubly flawed. First, it rests on a false premise. Numerous studies— including Anne Perkins’s study of “gay” sheep and George and Molly Hunt’s study of “lesbian” seagulls—have shown that some animals do form homosexual pairbonds.4 Second, even if that premise were true, it would not prove that homosexuality is immoral. After all, animals don’t cook their food, brush their teeth, attend college, or drive cars; human beings do all these things without moral censure. Indeed, the idea that animals could provide us with our standards, especially our sexual standards, is simply amusing.

3
What does not proceed from innate desires is unnatural. Recent studies suggesting a biological basis for homosexuality have resulted in two popular positions. One side says, “Homosexual people are born that way; therefore it’s natural (and thus good) for them to form homosexual relationships.” The other side retorts, “No, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, therefore it’s unnatural (and thus wrong).” Both sides seem to assume a connection between the cause or origin of homosexual orientation, on the one hand, and the moral value of homosexual activity, on the other. And insofar as they share that assumption, both sides are wrong.
     Consider first the pro-homosexual side: “They are born that way; therefore it’s natural and good.” This inference assumes that all innate desires are good ones (that is, that they should be acted upon). But that assumption is clearly false. Research suggests that some people are born with a predisposition towards violence, but such people have no more right to strangle their neighbors than anyone else. So while some people may be born with homosexual tendencies, it doesn’t follow that they ought to act on them.
     Nor does it follow that they ought not to act on them, even if the tendencies are not innate. I probably do not have any innate tendency to write with my left hand (since I, like everyone else in my family, have always been right-handed), but it doesn’t follow that it would be immoral for me to do so. So simply asserting that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice” will not show that it is an immoral lifestyle choice.
     Do people “choose” to be homosexual? People certainly don’t seem to choose their sexual feelings, at least not in any direct or obvious way. (Do you? Think about it.) Rather, they find certain people attractive and certain activities arousing, whether they “decide” to or not. Indeed, most people at some point in their lives wish that they could control their feelings more (for example, in situations of unrequited love) and find it frustrating that they cannot. What they can control to a considerable degree is how and when they act upon those feelings. In that sense, both homosexuality and heterosexuality involve “lifestyle choices.” But in either case, determining the cause or origin of the feelings will not determine whether it is moral to act upon them.

4
What violates an organ’s principal purpose is unnatural. Perhaps when people claim that homosexual sex is unnatural they mean that it cannot result in procreation. The idea behind the argument is that human organs have various “natural” purposes: eyes are for seeing, ears are for hearing, genitals are for procreating. According to this argument, it is immoral to use an organ in a way that violates its particular purpose.
     Many of our organs, however, have multiple purposes. Tommy can use his mouth for talking, eating, breathing, licking stamps, chewing gum, kissing Jim, and it seems rather arbitrary to claim that all but the last use are “natural.”5 (And if we say that some of the other uses are “unnatural, but not immoral,” we have failed to specify a morally relevant sense of the term “natural.”)
     Just because people can and do use their sexual organs to procreate, it does not follow that they should not use them for other purposes. Sexual organs seem very well suited for expressing love, for giving and receiving pleasure, and for celebrating, replenishing, and enhancing a relationship, even when procreation is not a factor. Unless opponents of homosexuality are prepared to condemn heterosexual couples who use contraception or individuals who masturbate, they must abandon this version of the unnaturalness argument. Indeed, even the Roman Catholic Church, which forbids contraception and masturbation, approves of sex for sterile couples and of sex during pregnancy, neither of which can lead to procreation. The Church concedes here that intimacy and pleasure are morally legitimate purposes for sex, even in cases where procreation is impossible. But since homosexual sex can achieve these purposes as well, it is inconsistent for the Church to condemn it on the grounds that it is not procreative.
     One might object that sterile heterosexual couples do not intentionally turn away from procreation, whereas homosexual couples do. But this distinction doesn’t hold. It is no more possible for Tommy to procreate with a woman whose uterus has been removed than it is for him to procreate with Jim. By having sex with either one, he is intentionally engaging in a nonprocreative sexual act.
     Yet one might press the objection further: Tommy and the woman could produce children if the woman were fertile. Whereas homosexual relationships are essentially infertile, heterosexual relationships are only incidentally so. But what does that prove? Granted, it might require less of a miracle for a woman without a uterus to become pregnant than for Jim to become pregnant, but it would require a miracle nonetheless. Thus it seems that the real difference here is not that one couple is fertile and the other not, or that one couple “could” be fertile (with the help of a miracle) and the other not, but rather that one couple is male-female and the other male-male. In other words, sex between Tommy and Jim is wrong because it’s male-male—that is, because it’s homosexual. But that, of course, is no argument at all.6

5
What is disgusting or offensive is unnatural. It often seems that when people call homosexuality “unnatural” they really just mean that it’s disgusting. But plenty of morally neutral activities—handling snakes, eating snails, performing autopsies, cleaning toilets, and so on—disgust people. Indeed, for centuries most people found interracial relationships disgusting, yet that feeling, which has by no means disappeared, hardly proves that such relationships are wrong. In sum, the charge that homosexuality is unnatural, at least in its most common forms, is longer on rhetorical flourish than on philosophical cogency.

GistReport:
Famous gospel singer, Frank Edwards reveal epic transformation that God has made in his life by sharing throwback and recent photos.



See more photos; http://gistmore.com/gospel-singer-frank-edwards-shares-then-vs-now-photos

MONEY TRANSFORMS, NOT JESUS. I have many friends that are solidified Christians and are still average

Jcole1985:
If no one was killed then it isn't worthy to be called news,don't report it to us.

your affinity for dad news is appalling, and it is persons like you that rejoice when a tragic event breaks out but questions God if they are faced with such issues

Fresh report reaching GIW is that Awolowo Hall in the University of Ibadan was invaded by Armed men in the early hours of today. The armed men reportedly came around 1am and operated for an hour before leaving. They operated majorly in the Block B and C.

As at the time of filing this report, no casualty has been recorded, however some properties such as laptops and phones were carted away. According to the source, though unconfirmed, some students were slapped and stabbed.

Albeit, in a new development, it has been confirmed that the Vice-chancellor has been pleading to occupants of the hall not to reveal details of the incident.
In an early reaction from a student who pleaded to stay anonymous, he said; “This is what happens when the authorities clamps down on unionism. A No to unionism, is a Yes to Cultism and gang violence.

More details to be published stay tuned.

� � � � � � � �

festacman:
Jagaban is a friend to all irrespective of age, class, religious belief or political leaning.

Just look at how respectfully and passionately he is interacting with Yobo and Taribo West. Class!

e ma wo were. the man is embezzlingmoney in billions and you're saying he is friend to all. which all?

cooljoe:
read the matrimonial causes act. Section 4 - prohibited degrees of consanquinity and affinity.

it is a pity that such law is usekess here

cooljoe:
the law forbids it. At least Nigerian laws

which section?

Bilsz:


If God wanted to destroy, I bet you nothing/nobody would be left...

like I quoted above, do you rather all your family perish in a house disaster yet the house remains intact for you, so you could have a bedroom. Since thats your most treasured treasuries

I dont want to serve a God who will give me option of destruction.

OLAADEGBU:
'God Is Awesome!' Tornado Destroys House, but Prayer Closet Still Standing
03-26-2019
Ericah Jones

The deadly, monster EF-4 tornado that recently tore through Lee County, Alabama, devoured nearly everything in its path. But one Christian family miraculously survived – huddled inside a prayer closet that was literally the only thing left standing from their house.

That massive twister killed 23 people, including four children. But amazing testimonies are still emerging in the aftermath.

Catastrophic events like this can be devastating and hard to come to grips with, but one eyewitness says this proves God's power to protect.

Jason Smith serves as a chaplain with the Billy Graham Rapid Response Team, and he went to the tornado zone to minister to survivors. But what he spotted there ministered to him – a piece of slab left from a home that had been demolished by the storm, according to 11 Alive.

Smith was surprised by what he found there, so he went public with the story to offer some inspiration. And the images he shared from that house have gone viral.

"Listen to me please. I just left a family who survived the tornado in this house and the only left standing is this closet," Smith wrote in the viral Facebook post.

Sitting upright on the thick, flat piece of concrete were the frames to what appeared to be a closet.

"It's the grandmother's prayer closet, and the whole family survived."

Smith, while in total shock, also knew that there could only be one reason behind the family surviving a deadly tornado that day.

"My God is awesome!!! Shout somebody!" he said.

This isn't the only astounding story to emerge from a recent tornado. As CBN News has reported, 40 kids were miraculously shielded as they sang "Jesus Loves Me," even though a tornado in Kentucky ripped off the roof from the church where they were sheltering.

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/march/god-is-awesome-tornado-destroys-house-but-prayer-closet-still-standing

most christians are of below the average IQ. why would a loving God destroy the house in the first place?.what is the usefulness of prayer closet without a bedroom?

ChristineC:
No but I think Nigerian customs don't condone it. common sense should also tell you it's not proper health wise

it depends on the part of the country you're talking about. hausas do it, there have been vague reports that some parts of south West did it before they banned it. so let's be guided

amaniro:



I know it's actually a mixed economy. But I purposely said it because with time we will start practising full-time Capitalism.

don't let us deceive ourselves, capitalism to socialism percentage is 90% to 10%. the workers who are supposed to be the major element of socialism are toothless bulldogs

is God not the owner of the earth and what is therein? ���

What is the usefulness of this news?

The man was useless when he was alive, no amount of Quranic reading or devotion can change that. He was probably thinking reading Quran would change all the bad things he did when he was alive. ���� See you in hell bro

psychology

post=74435344:
However, Yakassai had, on September 8, 2015, in another interview on Channels TV, denied Amina Zakari’s relations with Buhari. He had said that his actual words were manipulated by some parties. He was later quoted to have said that “Somebody added something because I did not criticize her or her appointment. She is my daughter and a friend to her father was at one time my permanent secretary. Her mother is a friend to my senior wife. She is a friend to some of my children. I see no reason why I should criticize her.” 
He had also said that Amina’s “neutrality should not be contested on the grounds of familiarity with the president because she is entitled to the post as a Nigerian and a qualified professional.” 

END OF DISCUSSION.

Dem don dey start oo, no wahala. we are looking from the high places

Joromi12:
Tribal fools are coming

they are already here. NIGERIA go soon break

Basic Terms


  


A certain amount of jargon exists within the SM community. I’ve included a more complete glossary at the end of this book, but I thought I would briefly define the more commonly used words here. They’ll be showing up throughout the book, so a short introduction (in logical order, not alphabetical order) of twelve commonly used terms should be useful. (Note: There is widespread, but not universal, agreement within the community regarding these definitions.)

• Dominant: One who gives orders during SM play.

• Sadist: A person who specifically enjoys giving pain.

• Top: A generic term for someone who enjoys being dominant and/or sadistic. Many people use the word “top” to mean someone who enjoys giving sensation, as opposed to a “dominant,” who enjoys being in control of others.

• Submissive: One who obeys orders during SM play.

• Masochist: A person who specifically enjoys receiving pain.

• Bottom: A generic term for someone who enjoys being submissive and/or masochistic. Many people use the word “bottom” to mean specifically someone who enjoys being given various sensations, as opposed to a “submissive,” who enjoys being controlled.

• Switch: A person who enjoys both the top and bottom roles.

• Play: SM erotic activity involving bondage, pain, domination, and so forth.

• Scene: A meeting between two (or more) people for the purpose of SM play. Also known as a “session.”

• Toy: A piece of SM equipment such as a whip, collar, length of rope, and so forth. One “plays” with “toys” during “scenes.”

• In the scene: A member of the SM community. A person might say “I’ve been in the scene for five years.” One person might ask another, “Is so-and-so in the scene?”

• Pervert: A term of affectionate recognition with the SM community. “Hey, Pervert” is sometimes called out on the street if only the other person is within earshot.

The Sociology, Politics, and Economics of SM


  


In the 1970s, we saw a fascinating phenomenon: the “Gay Liberation” movement. Rejected by society, these people joined together, pooled their resources, and became a potent economic, social, and political force.


The gay community’s support is now important, sometimes essential, for election in many cities. County, state, and even national candidates often take stands on gay-rights issues. If the Kinsey estimates can be believed, a group that forms about five percent of the population has become a major political force.


That being so, what are the implications for a group more than double that size? New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Washington are only a few of the cities that have had a self-aware SM community emerge. Such communities are also emerging in many other cities. Also, efforts are underway to link the SM groups in various areas into a national organization.


Gay-related parades, rallies, and demonstrations now often include an SM group. Organizations that refuse to include such a group are asked detailed, repeated questions regarding the refusal’s basis. The leather-clad people asking these questions do not feel inclined to take “no” for an answer.


Again, we see the beginnings of the emergence of a self-aware, organized group of people banded together based on their sexual preference. This movement is growing and getting stronger. Its implications are at least as strong as the gay movement.


Laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or sexual preference do not currently explicitly include SM people, and they should. I would have no problem with an SM person teaching in an elementary school, performing surgery, or serving in the military. Indeed, I happen to know that SM people have been doing all of those things, and many more, for quite some time.


I’m told that the National Organization for Women’s official position is that SM is inherently incompatible with women’s interests. Given that most of the SM women I know identify as feminists, this may be the next area in which we need to raise consciousness.

You would never have gotten me to believe that I would en joy that.

Why On Earth Would Anybody Want to Do this Stuff in the First Place?


  


Why, indeed. That question, perhaps more than any other, has caused many people great emotional pain. I think that anybody who has an “other than conventional” sexual interest must have wondered why they feel that way.


The “why” question is too broad to answer with a single reason. No one right answer exists. However, if we break the question into smaller pieces, and take them one at a time, we can make progress.


It’s like asking, “Why do people go to the movies?” Those who go find it rewarding, at least enough so to continue going. Exactly what is rewarding, and how rewarding it is, varies from person to person. SM is like that.


One important aspect of this question is defining conventional sex. Not long ago, many if not most people considered MouthAction and anal sex, even among heterosexuals, “sick,” “disgusting,” “perverted,” and “unnatural.” Some people still regard them in that way, and laws forbidding these practices - with lengthy prison terms for “violators” — exist in many states.


So as we ponder “why,” it helps to remember that there is no universal agreement regarding “natural” and “unnatural” sex practices; people define them in many different ways. (As opposed to robbery, for example, where much more widespread agreement exists.) Many sexual practices considered unspeakable in one culture or period of history are considered normal, even preferable, in another. Indeed, if you think there’s such a thing as “natural” sex, consider the variety of sexual expression found among animals.


Still, most men and women, even if they’ve had a reasonable exposure to SM, feel no attraction to it. Why do others?


The first seemingly reasonable explanation is that people attracted to SM, particularly submissives or masochists, must be mentally disturbed. (Many people believe they can imagine why someone would want to be dominant or sadistic. But why would someone want to be given orders, tied up, or — God help them — whipped? How can pain, of all things, be enjoyable? A person who desires to feel pain is dearly crazy.)


Well, if so, there certainly are a lot of “sickies.” As I mentioned earlier, at least one person in nine feels attracted to SM. Also about one person in three discovers that they enjoy SM. Can one-third of the population be sexually sick?

Most couples don’t have conversations like this.

Furthermore, these sickies deal with their illness remarkably well. My SM friends hold jobs as well as my non-SM friends. They begin and end relationships, marry and divorce, and make both friends and enemies with a frequency apparently equal to that of non-SM people. They seem to have no greater or lesser frequency of alcoholism, suicide, mental illness, or history of having endured child abuse. In fact, they seem identical to “normal” people.


One study (An Initial Study of Nonclinical Practitioners of Sexual Sadomasochism by Janet P. Miale, 1986, the Professional School of Psychological Studies, San Diego, CA) found no significant differences between a group of SM people and a control group of “normal” people.


So, if we’re not crazy, what are we?


I think many people explore SM because, as Hot creatures, we feel somewhat curious about all forms of sex. Most heterosexual couples explore sexual intercourse in various positions, locations, and times of day. Many also try MouthAction and anal sex. Some try “mate swapping,” group sex, and bisexuality. As they work down the sexual menu, these couples come to SM. It’s yet another sexual adventure, perhaps made more alluring by being considered too far out by many.


What many of us are, then, is not crazy, but explorative.

What is SM?


  


I define SM as the knowing use of psychological dominance and submission, and/or physical bondage, and/or pain, and/or related practices in a safe, legal, consensual manner in order for the participants to experience erotic arousal and/or personal growth.


A widely accepted upper limit to SM is that the dominant will not do anything to the submissive (and, for that matter, the submissive will not do anything to the dominant) that would require a physician, psychotherapist, or other external resource to heal.


Because SM varies widely in manner and intensity, people use several terms to describe it. “Bondage and Discipline” (B&) should rationally refer to the dominant restraining the submissive in some fashion, then “training” them to behave in certain ways. However, it more commonly refers to “lighter” SM, and not the more “extreme” sadomasochism. Unfortunately, no uniform opinion exists regarding where the line lies between the two.


Another term sometimes used is “D&S” or “DS,” referring to “Domination and Submission.” This is more to the point.


“SDS,” for “Sexual Domination and Submission,” had been proposed and is actually quite good, but “SDS” has unfortunate political implications.


A new overall descriptive term rapidly gaining currency is “BDSM,” which incorporates Bondage & Discipline, Domination & Submission, and Sadism & Masochism.


However, tradition has firmly established the slightly alarming and rather easy to misunderstand term “sadomasochism” as the word in general use to describe this area of sexuality. Sadomasochism is long and polysyllabic, so it’s more commonly abbreviated to S&M, S/M, or simply SM. I’ll use the term SM throughout this book. (It’s easier to type.)

‘A stiff prick has no conscience’ - what a contemptible rationalization!