chiogo:

LOL I'm still lost. American/world history is not my forte.  help please?

SEFAGO on Yesterday at 09:53:16 PM:

It has the law school that donald rumsfeld went to after princeton, but he dropped out of it. Never said it was prestigious.

That doesn't in anyway, answer my question. Is the school so sacred that the name cannot be written?

@SEFAGO, we have almost the same SAT scores. you took the SAT's at 14, it's a young age to Americans. But not if you're in Nigeria where people complete high school early. Cornell is a good school, never heard of Williams. 

You need to learn how to wikipedia things when clues are placed in front of you.

Homosexuality is not a mental illness either especially if you know what mental illness means.

Sagamite:

You need to learn how to wikipedia things when clues are placed in front of you.

Wikipedia is not my friend. But I've found it though. I'm just lazy jare.

SEFAGO:

And the monkey is at it again

Your university is not all that. Calm down, you are not that special. And no, you did not get into Cornell or UPenn, as you would not be that crazy not to bite their hands off and instead opt and end up where you are now (that is only good for its Foreign Service and Diplomacy schools).

And don't worry, we will get Oxford to pick their next Vice Chancellor from your university's alumni, so you will have enough "proof" it is the best university in the world.

Homosexuality cannot be seen as a disease or perversion. Those are misnomers. If it is a disease then we should also be able to trace its causes, is it caused by genes, (that in itself it would be probably hereditary too in someway)

SEFAGO:

you finally did your research congrats. I did, mate, I just couldn't pay for them. i got a full scholarship. Why should I pay 60k a year to go to upenn. Learn b4 u talk, I dont lie online to anonymous people.

Good for its SFS school, LSE is only good for economics, do people complain about people who study law about it. And another point of your ignorance. chiogo he told you my school anyways it is Georgetown so you don't have to do a wikipedia about it.

No, son. YOU told her.

Gay individuals cannot be denied their rights based on emotion. Is there concrete proof against the unnaturallness of homosexuality? No

Learn to be competent, inspirational and entertaining, otherwise you will remain irritating.

Advice, not a rap lyric.

Learn to be competent, inspirational and entertaining, otherwise you will remain irritating.

Advice, not a rap lyric.

Sounded like rap to me. You have given up insulting my school. By the way did u see the picture of my chimp? 

I kissed a Boy I liked it The taste of his chappy red lips, I kissed a girl, Just to try it, and I liked it and I invited them for a party in my bedroom

Sagamite could you keep your posts about my school, It keeps making you look like an ass.

I told you I have nothing against you. I do agree (not sarcastically, that I am slightly arrogant online) but the reason doesn't really stem from my school. It is generally how Americans write, prolly different from nigerian style. I see it a lot in oyinda's post too. I rarely see it in yours, so i would assume you are misconstruing arrogance for style. Also, in person, I accord respect to everyone from a janitor to the CEO of a bank. They are the same people to me- we live, we die. What positions we held in this world are irrelevant. It is what we did that matters. I think I have shown a decent amount of humility and maturity as a 19 year old.

Why is it so hard for you to do so?. Agreed, i might have posted the chimp picture  , boasted about my school, not because of its name but purely out of school pride (I boast about Nigeria right in front of the whole first world). My dad tells me UI is the best school in the world and I never disagree with him.

I expect you to do the same, you don't agree with me, and I don't with you especially on gay rights. No argument i give you will change my mind. None that you give me will make me a bigot. So let us end it there. No need to bring my personal life into this.

Is there concrete proof that homosexuality is genetic or that people are born that way- probably no, then it would be obviously hereditary -passed from family to family-(An argument I waited patiently for people to come up with that could have destroyed any other further statements on the thread).

So the second part of the question: Is there any contrary evidence that shows it is not?

You need a clear Yes for the second one, and a clear No for the first to disprove the topic of this thread

Mr Sagamite cut out the bullsh*t, why the focus on SEFAGO's school when you should be more concerned with the topic being discussed? you are exhibiting the worst of all that is wrong in the typical Nigerian approach to issues, leaving the heart of the issue being discussed and focusing on inanities such as is aptly demonstrated by that idiot in the house who is only interested in constructing complex grammar to the detriment of the issues for discussion in the house. Can't you argue your points without getting so personal and letting us know how important you are?

Mr Sagamite cut out the bullsh*t, why the focus on SEFAGO's school when you should be more concerned with the topic being discussed? you are exhibiting the worst of all that is wrong in Nigerian approach to issues, leaving the heart of the issue being discussed and focusing on inanities such as is aptly demonstrated by that idiot in the house who is only interested in constructing complex grammar to the detriment of the issues for discussion in the house. Can't you argue points without getting so personal and letting us know how important you are?

Are you helping matters?


@Topic,

We are just born as reproducers
Sexual fulfillment doesnt follow a 'standard template' and thats what being 'gay' is about.
The body doesnt know who is female, male or a dog.

Desperation to demonstrate superior intelligence: When your intelligence is only above average and even evident in the merely decent university you attend and pride yourself so much on (funnily when it is likely due to affirmative action benefits), hence you should be careful the people you challenge intellectually.

Ok, I just saw this, and that is very very disturbing,  especially coming from a black person  . You know how much prejudice/discrimination black people experience in America/UK (I know to you it isn't obvious, but instead of just assuming that everything is right because i was lucky to  come to the US when prejudice was more reduced) and you try to disparage someones achievements based on affirmative action? I might as well assume that Bayo ogunlesi got to his position at credit suisse through affirmative action (He is one of the heads of the SEO- people who try and get minorities into wall street and a big proponent of AA, I met him once when he came to my school). Insult Barack Obama, someone who spent his first two years at a sub-level liberal art school b4 he transferred to Columbia, and he got the equivalent of a 2-2 (second class lower), then continued to Harvard law (we obviously know how), and graduated magna cum laude (first class equivalent). Did you not celebrate his victory?

By the way affirmative action is only done for US citizens/ permanent residents. I am not one. Agreed there are very few Original Nigerians- proudly green white and green  (international students not part-time nigerians (british ones or Americans)- In the top 25 schools (maximum of maybe 30-50 a year-I have been around so i know some of them)  but it is illegal for schools to implement affirmative action for internationals to attract us. Everyone of us who got to where we are got in through hardwork- very very different from intelligence.

Gamine:

Are you helping matters?

I don't know and I don't care, if the guy likes he should ask for my school and I'll tell him its Unipetrol.

Gamine:

@Topic,

We are just born as reproducers
Sexual fulfillment doesnt follow a 'standard template' and thats what being 'gay' is about.
The body doesnt know who is female, male or a dog.

I largely agree with this, we mostly all like to have our privates stimulated one way or the other, the question as to whether someone is born gay could as well be rephrased to ask if someone is born heterosexual. As sex and reproduction have become largely separated for mankind.

Having said that though, it still must be pointed out that it is well within the realm of possibility for there to be a genetic link of some sort for homosexual behaviour and until the impossibility of such a link is totally eliminated, then you can't catergorically state that it is impossible to be born gay.

BTW, I can't help laughin at your jibe about someone getting a BJ from a monkey while blindfolded even though its quite a disturbing image.

SEFAGO:

I kissed a Boy I liked it The taste of his chappy red lips, I kissed a girl, Just to try it, and I liked it and I invited them for a party in my bedroom

Quick question: Are you gay? (no pun intended)

I largely agree with this, we mostly all like to have our privates stimulated one way or the other, the question as to whether someone is born gay could as well be rephrased to ask if someone is born heterosexual. As sex and reproduction have become largely separated for mankind.

Very good phrased question (Not because you agreed with me   ). Yes sex and reproduction are very different thing. If we are going to only think of reproduction, them homosexuality in itself could become a problem because it might lead to the extinction of our species (humans). As long as (1) Gay people continue being a minority (2)They don't start raping people (rare to hear of gay rape, more common to hear about heterosexual rape)
3) and they don't start smiling at me or giving me advances   , I am happy. What you do in your bedroom is your business as long as you are not hurting other people

SEFAGO:


Ok, I just saw this, and that is very very disturbing,  especially coming from a black person  . You know how much prejudice/discrimination black people experience in America/UK (I know to you it isn't obvious, but instead of just assuming that everything is right because i was lucky to  come to the US when racism was more reduced) and you try to disparage someones achievements based on affirmative action? I might as well assume that Bayo ogunlesi got to his position at credit suisse through affirmative action (He is one of the heads of the SEO- people who try and get minorities into wall street and a big proponent of AA, I met him once when he came to my school). Insult Barack Obama, someone who spent his first two years at a sub-level liberal art school b4 he transferred to Columbia, and he got the equivalent of a 2-2 (second class upper), then continued to Harvard law (we obviously know how), and graduated magna cum laude (first class equivalent). Did you not celebrate his victory?

By the way affirmative action is only done for US citizens/ permanent residents. I am not one. Agreed there are very few Original Nigerians- proudly green white and green  (international students not part-time nigerians (british ones or Americans))- In the top 25 schools (maximum of maybe 30-50 a year-I have been around so i know)  but it is illegal for schools to implement affirmative action for international students.  

That is what happens when people disparage things they know nothing about. Reminds me of a Nigerian Psychiatrist who came to Dublin and told a friend that Homosexuals should still be classed as being mentally ill. He kept quiet when his colleague reminded him that there was a time that Blacks were considered sub-human and asked him how he would feel if someone still considered him sub-human.

Quick question: Are you gay? (no pun intended)

No, I am not. I used to be averse to homosexuality until I wrote a research paper on homosexuality. Like so i know a lot, a lot more than I am even posting here. From historical data, to the gay movement, to how they tried to link the gay movement to the civil rights movement, to the laramie project (where a young boy was killed by his peers because of his orientation), to gays in media, business, science- i don read all the book finish. That is when I began to understand that prejudice is ignorance.

I believe one should read openly, search for answers critically, Never accept everything other people tell you until I myself do the research and find out it is true. I can't equate pedophilia to homosexuality- pedophiles are wrong, no arguments for them, they are crazy although I am radically liberal a.k.a socialist.

There behavior harms society directly (pedophiles). When having sex too much reduces reproductivity, I would argue against too much sex too, because it is harmful to our society- could lead to our extinction.

My only fear against homosexuality is that maybe our full acceptance would lead to it competing with heterosexuality as the traditional sexual behavior. My only concerns with it are the long term societal effects (accepting something as right could lead to its escalation). However, I might be wrong, for one, I dont find any man attractive except myself  . If I get raped by a man, I wouldn't find men attractive either, I would just get scared when I see a man in the night. Na woman I enjoy pass  and that was how i was born .

How taboos in society are constructed is usually to prevent harm to that society. For example in yoruba land/other cultures shaking someone with your left hand is a taboo.  Usually this is because in the past we cleaned ass with our left. Now, it is still a taboo (judging by the slaps i sometimes get from my dad) to touch an elder with your left hand. But in other advanced countries everyone shakes/serves/touches with both hands. Not a taboo anymore, but it was a long time ago b4 tissue paper  . Incase you don't understand my analogy, homosexuality does not fit the standards required for  being a taboo using sociology. Also shows we are always slow to change



Disclaimer: I am totally ignorant and mediocre so no one should insult me, I am not worth it-everyone on nairaland knows more than i do. i am just stating what my below average mind thinks.

Alright. Thanks.

Having said that though, it still must be pointed out that it is well within the realm of possibility for there to be a genetic link of some sort for homosexual behaviour and until the impossibility of such a link is totally eliminated, then you can't catergorically state that it is impossible to be born gay.

On that premise, definately.

Is there a God? since we cant prove there isnt, oh well, might as well be one.

BTW, I can't help laughin at your jibe about someone getting a BJ from a monkey while blindfolded even though its quite a disturbing image.

lol,
yeah. .i woke up one day to see my dog licking my feet, i was so tickled and it kinda struck me.

Reminds me of a Nigerian Psychiatrist who came to Dublin and told a friend that Homosexuals should still be classed as being mentally ill. He kept quiet when his colleague reminded him that there was a time that Blacks were considered sub-human and asked him how he would feel if someone still considered him sub-human.

I dont buy this comparism at all esp now that we are being proven as the master race 

Even the chinese, one of the slowest to social change don't classify it as a mental illness. Uptill 2001, it was still an illness:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/08/health/08PSYC.html

Important new evidence on a plausible mechanism for the evolution of :gay genes: has emerged from the elegant work of Camperio-Ciani [24]. They found in two large, independent studies that the female relatives of homosexual men tended to have significantly more offspring than those of the heterosexual men. Female relatives of the homosexual men on their mother's side tended to have more offspring than those on the father's side. This indicates that females carrying a putative "gay genes" complex are more fecund than women lacking this complex of genes, and thereby can compensate for any decreased fertility of the males carrying the genes. This is a well known phenomenon in evolution known as "sexual antagonism", and has been widely documented for many traits that are advantageous in one sex but not in the other

Trust me, if there is a gay gene one day, it would be found. Right now we can speculate. Is it a mutation? Maybe, but then that shifts the debate into another dimension. How evolution works is totally different from rational human thinking.

Camperio-Ciani is a brilliant scientist by the way and would not be fabricating anything. He is also straight. So dont worry, not biased data 

I changed my age so that people can at least award me some respect and stop calling me son. I want to be a father. 



Disclaimer: I am totally ignorant and mediocre so no one should insult me, I am not worth it-everyone on nairaland knows more than i do. i am just stating what my below average mind thinks.

Quick question: Are you gay? (no pun intended)

Just curious, I can't find the pun here, could you point it out to me.

@bawomolo

As someone once said to me about when she decided she wanted kids "I went to the club, looked for a guy and f**ked him!". Purely mechanical, one does not need to be attracted to a person to have sexual intercourse with them.

SEFAGO, are you really  19?

@Kelorrah

I am now 108, because it seems people are judging me a lot on my age. My question is are you over 18? 

Disclaimer: I am totally ignorant and mediocre so no one should insult me. However I do have needs .

duduspace:

Mr Sagamite cut out the bullsh*t, why the focus on SEFAGO's school when you should be more concerned with the topic being discussed? you are exhibiting the worst of all that is wrong in the typical Nigerian approach to issues, leaving the heart of the issue being discussed and focusing on inanities such as is aptly demonstrated by that idiot in the house who is only interested in constructing complex grammar to the detriment of the issues for discussion in the house. Can't you argue your points without getting so personal and letting us know how important you are?

Shut up, if you can not engage yourself to understand reasons for things or historical exchanges then don't comment stupidly on it.

Do you see me applying the same approach to others? Coming up with stupid assertions. Did you bother to find out why I am attacking his school?

SEFAGO is getting the medicine to tame his stupid, overvalued self. He caught my eye with his posts (most of which he has deleted now) advising others on the education system. But I also saw that he felt so hot that he was disparaging achievements of others e.g. was when chiogo was announced as valedictorian and everyone was congratulating and encouraging with "well done", "we are so proud of you" and this arrogant prick came into the thread to be screaming what is the big deal and people should stop celebrating mediocrity. Another was when it was posted that a Nigerian kid got a Phd in record time in the UK and everyone was happy to hear that and this prick again came with the same disparaging dins like if he can do better. I was thinking like Obama: "He is a Jackass!"

That was when I started wondering if this guy was some wonderboy from Harvard, Yale or Stanford with a big head to put down other achievers achievement.

Then my first interaction with him was in the Sanusi sackings thread where he came in to say a lot of folks are not smart, that smart people like him would make a good president. He went on to belittle Soludo and gave us a lecture of what policies he would have set as CBN governor and quickly pointing out to the audience that he knows all these despite not even studying economics as a degree and has not graduated in the one he is doing. And I was thinking this prick has the audacity to be arrogating what men with years and fantastic track record in economics should be doing. Soludo has even been tutoring people that are miles more intelligent than him in Oxford and Cambridge (but I guess that is irrelevant because according to his own scoring system his university is better) but yet he feels he knows better than him. I spotted his weakness in substance when he started arrogating the Head of Risk in a bank cannot know much about banking and the economy. Just showed me that this is a boy that knows nothing about the corporate life.

He not only did that, but he went on rambling about how he was more intelligent than most people and I advised him to curb it, that his arrogance is not much of a big deal but he should watch who to use it to and when to use it or else it would be a weakness. He went on with some further disparaging dins and that was when he talked about his university scoring system but I decided to ignore him and just laugh it off.

Then in the MBA thread he came again with his unsubstantiated arrogance and even went as far as indirectly telling me that my opinion is rubbish and "we (i.e. him) the smart one blah blah blah". I was overghasted and flabberwhelmed and very scared I was I interacting with a Harvard prodigy.  He went on with blah blah vitriol against me, which I ignored to save a brilliant thread and warned him he had no self-awareness (evidence in his stupidity here when he asserted he is demonstrating "maturity".

So I decided to exploit the weakness I warned him about (his uncontrolled arrogance) and teased out the university I suspected he attended, that is swelling his head so much that he is the world's Don Capone of smartness. He fell for the bait like a little sucker because he obviously is not as smart as he thinks he is.

By then, I knew he was just some above average little boy that thinks he is special.

Since this is the internet and I can't take him to his good parents to report him that he is being rude to his elders where I would imagine his father would have been horrified and giving me the liberty to flog him, I had to use other means to deal with him. I can just imagine getting my belt out and flogging his young arse. 

"SEFAGO, TURN YOUR BACK FOR YOUR FLOGGING! . . . . . If you move away, that would be THREE more strokes! . . . . . I say if . . . . . . Come here . . . . . . I said TURN your back and hold that railing for your flogging or else I will drop the belt and use the TV cable! . . . . .His father would say: If you dare run, take your rightful beating." 

On this thread alone, I exploited his weakness again when he was getting out of hand and I am shocked at the level his arrogance is a weakness. I expected a rant about how good his university is but I did not, for the life of me, expect he would reveal it to the world, state his SAT scores  and confirm his secondary school when his OVERRIDING goal on NL is to be highly anonymous. The boy is not that sharp and sharper people know what buttons to push to finish him off. It is like entering a boxing ring and a boxer makes a statement to the opposition and the opposition loses his composure and starts flailing like a sissy having a fight. Of course he would expose himself to jabbings and the sucker punch. I warned him his arrogance would be his weak point, I will advise him from this point on to develop maturity.

He is not really that smart based on these reactions and his lack of substance in his regurgitated write-ups. I struggle to believe his SAT scores if it is the same as chiogo because I would expect she is not in his league academically.

Another evidence is his lack of intelligence to even know you will have to behave in a certain way or do certain corrections if you want something from people.

When I first found out his university, he requested I modify my text to help with his anonymity. Even despite me finding him irritating and he was raining a lot of insults on me at the same moment he was requesting I helped him, I was principled enough to oblige.

Now he wants me to do it again but he does not have enough self-awareness (as I warned him months ago) to know the things he needs to do to get what he wants. What a fool.

When he does what he has to do, then I would oblige him in 24 hours as a punishment for not engaging his brain quickly.

Sagamite:

Shut up, if you are not engage yourself to understand reasons for things or historical exchanges then don't comment stupidly on it.

Do you see me applying the same approach to others? Coming up with stupid assertions. Did you bother to find out why I am attacking his school?

SEFAGO is getting the medicine to tame his stupid, overvalued self. He caught my eye with his posts (most of which he has deleted now) advising others on the education system. But I also saw that he felt so hot that he was disparaging achievements of others e.g. was when chiogo was announced as valedictorian and everyone was congratulating and encouraging with "well done", "we are so proud of you" and this arrogant prick came into the thread to be screaming what is the big deal and people should stop celebrating mediocrity. Another was when it was posted that a Nigerian kid got a Phd in record time in the UK and everyone was happy to hear that and this prick again came with the same disparaging dins like if he can do better.

That was when I started wondering if this guy was some wonderboy from Harvard, Yale or Stanford with a big head to put down other achievers achievement.

Then my first interaction with him was in the Sanusi sackings thread where he came in to say a lot of folks are not smart, that smart people like him would make a good president. He went on to belittle Soludo and gave us a lecture of what policies he would have set as CBN governor and quickly pointing out to the audience that he knows all these despite not even studying economics as a degree and has not graduated in the one he is doing. And I was thinking this prick has the audacity to be arrogating what men with years and fantastic track record in economics should be doing. Soludo has even been tutoring people that are miles more intelligent than him in Oxford and Cambridge (but I guess that is irrelevant because according to his own scoring system his university is better) but yet he feels he knows better than him. I spotted his weakness in substance when he started arrogating the Head of Risk in a bank cannot know much about banking and the economy. Just showed me that this is a boy that knows nothing about the corporate life.

He not only did that, but he went on rambling about how he was more intelligent than most people and I advised him to curb it, that his arrogance is not much of a big deal but he should watch who to use it to and when to use it or else it would be a weakness. He went on with some further disparaging dins and that was when he talked about his university scoring system but I decided to ignore him and just laugh it off.

Then in the MBA thread he came again with his unsubstantiated arrogance and even went as far as indirectly telling me that my opinion is rubbish and he the smart one blah blah blah. I was overghasted and flabberwhelmed and very scared I was I interacting with a Harvard prodigy.  He went on with blah blah vitriol against me, which I ignored to save a brilliant thread and warned him he had no self-awareness (evidence in his stupidity here when he asserted he is demonstrating "maturity".

So I decided to exploit the weakness I warned him about (his uncontrolled arrogance) and teased out the university I suspected he attended that is swelling his head he is the world's Don Capone. He fell for it like a sucker because he obviously is not as smart as he thinks he is.

By then, I knew he was just some above average little boy that thinks he is special,

Blah blah blah,  too long a story over nothing, okay, so he is a bit arrogant? so what? the best way to correct him is to attack his school? where is the correlation in that? deal with his points and leave the personal abuse where they belong.
I am pleased at his confidence, knowledge and presentation of his points (if he is really 19) but to paraphrase Martin Luther King Jnr. A nairalander should not be judged based on his age, the school he has attended or other mundane attributes but on the quality and substance of his posts.

@ SEFAGO;

@ Sagamite -

Interesting debate you have going on. May i present myself as a judge of sorts. I do happen to have a legal background.

In reaching my conclusions, i shall use the premises and resultant conclusion set forth by Sefago below:

SEFAGO:

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

Premise 1 - Humans are Animals.

Although this premise is only partially correct, and may be said to be an over-statement or a limitation of definition regarding the nature of humanity, i will not dwell on it because humans undisputably are given of some of the same physical instincts as animals are. I will therefore give this premise a pass mark. Let's proceed.

Premise 2 - Animals engage in Homo Sexuality.

Now this premise is fraught with severe problems. Some of these problems are:

1. It is a mis-characterization of an exception as a rule:

Let me elucidate:If one were to state: "Human beings eat food" - the direct inference would be that eating food is a normal and standard practice for human beings. That would be a correct inference as the statement has been set out in broad, generalistic terms.

Let's take another statement: "Human beings are cannibals." This is another broad generalistic statement that could lead to a wrong inference: namely, that it is in the nature of human beings to be cannibals, and thus a normal and standard human practice. The correct way to phrase this statement would be - "Some human beings are cannibals." In this way it becomes clear that it is not necessarily within the nature of human beings to be cannibals, but that some human beings do practice such.

This is why i said that the second premise is a mis-characterization of an exception as a rule. It should properly have read: "Some animals engage in homosexuality" - thus making it clear that homosexuality is not necessarily the norm within the animal sub-set.

If it is not the norm within the animan sub-set, we can hardly use this premise to reach a conclusion that it is anything but an exception for human beings (who, by the way, have a higher ethical reasoning capacity). That would be a fundamental contradiction in terms.

Even if the foregoing reasoning is wrong (i doubt that it is), there is a second and even more fundamental problem with the premise. This problem concerns the nature of animal homosexuality in the first place. To wit -

2. Animals are not homosexual in the proper definition of the word. Let's watch the cases of so-called animal homosexuality. Do such cases have any co-relation with human homosexuality? I contend that they are entirely dissimilar. This is the reason:

Animals do not make a distinction regarding the object of their sexual attention with reference to instinctive physical motions. For example when my dog is on heat, he will attempt to mount anything at all: including humans. He will push himself against a pole, against me, and against other dogs (male or female) in excercising the instinctive sexual motion. He does not see and develop a desire for a fellow male, he only makes instinctive sexual motions directed at anything. This is significantly different from humans who will see and have specific desires for persons of the same sex. No animal will engage in homosexual conduct if there is an available female on hand, against which it may throw its instinctive physical motions, but human homosexuality will actively disdain the female and specifically desire the male.

If you appreciate the foregoing, you will understand that animals are not in fact homosexual at all - in the proper sense of the word. Do they have a homosexual desire? Can you show me even one single animal that only sexually targets the same sex? You cannot, because animals are not homosexual in the definition of the word, and their so-called acts of homosexuality, comparatively speaking, are really just mindless acts of masturbation on any available entity.

Therefore, on either or both planks - the point must emphatically be made that animal acts of homosexuality can never be a premise for human homosexuality because as i have shown above -

i. Animals are not homosexual within the context of homosexual desire and

ii. Even if they are, it is the case that some animals are, and not all. It is the exception, rather than the rule, and as such this could not possibly make a case for human homo-sexuality being anything but the same: the exception and not the rule.

Given that the premise fails, the conclusion also naturally fails.

However, the Conclusion, if i might add, suffers independent problems of its own.

The conclusion states: "Therefore in the natural order of things homosexuality is not a deviance from expected biological behavior."

Can we define the word "deviation".

Without bothering to consult a dictionary, i suppose that we can all agree that a deviation is a departure from a norm, a variation or a digression.

"Expected biological behaviour", must clearly refer to the in-built sexual orientation geared towards biological goals. That's the only apt use of the word "biological" within that phrase. It is patently clear, from both the structure of reproductive organs, and the biological result of copulation (reproduction) that the sexual behaviour expected by nature should be heterosexual in nature. In addittion to the fact that homosexuality is not the norm in any human society, it could thus be said to be both un-natural and anti-social. At the very minimum, it definitely represents a deviation, however that may be defined.

With a heavy heart, although i do appreciate SEFAGO's good efforts and good reasoning, i am constrained on the basis of the deductions set forth above, to conclude that both his premises and his conclusion are deficient and significantly flawed even in terms of logic alone, but also in terms of sociological and biological considerations.

However: addressing the topic of this thread, i must state without much ado that although i previously had a murderous attitude to the very idea that any person could be gay, i concede that it is patently obvious, and also empirically verified, that some persons have abnormal hormonal imbalances which affect their sexual orientation. Some men have degrees of female hormones that render them effeminate, and some women (beard and all) have degrees of male hormones that render them mannish, and thus inclined to become lesbians. This is a scientific fact, and no person can contest this.

But in summary - it's ceratinly abnormal and unnatural and perhaps scientific solutions (such as hormonal re-balancing) should be sought.

wbb

Interesting debate you have going on. May i present myself as a judge of sorts. I do happen to have a legal background.

In reaching my conclusions, i shall use the premises and resultant conclusion set forth by Sefago below:

Quote from: SEFAGO on Today at 02:10:51 PM
Basically my argument is predicated on these premises:
1) Humans are animals
2) Animals engage in homosexuality
Conclusion: Therefore in the natural order of things homosexuality is not a deviance from expected biological behavior.

Premise 1 - Humans are Animals.

Although this premise is only partially correct, and may be said to be an over-statement or a limitation of definition regarding the nature of humanity, i will not dwell on it because humans undisputably are given of some of the same physical instincts as animals are. I will therefore give this premise a pass mark. Let's proceed.

Premise 2 - Animals engage in Homo Sexuality.

Now this premise is fraught with severe problems. Some of these problems are:

    1. It is a mis-characterization of an exception as a rule:

Let me elucidate:If one were to state: "Human beings eat food" - the direct inference would be that eating food is a normal and standard practice for human beings. That would be a correct inference as the statement has been set out in broad, generalistic terms.

Let's take another statement: "Human beings are cannibals." This is another broad generalistic statement that could lead to a wrong inference: namely, that it is in the nature of human beings to be cannibals, and thus a normal and standard human practice. The correct way to phrase this statement would be - "Some human beings are cannibals." In this way it becomes clear that it is not necessarily within the nature of human beings to be cannibals, but that some human beings do practice such.

This is why i said that the second premise is a mis-characterization of an exception as a rule. It should properly have read: "Some animals engage in homosexuality" - thus making it clear that homosexuality is not necessarily the norm within the animal sub-set.

If it is not the norm within the animan sub-set, we can hardly use this premise to reach a conclusion that it is anything but an exception for human beings (who, by the way, have a higher ethical reasoning capacity). That would be a fundamental contradiction in terms.

Even if the foregoing reasoning is wrong (i doubt that it is), there is a second and even more fundamental problem with the premise. This problem concerns the nature of animal homosexuality in the first place. To wit -

2. Animals are not homosexual in the proper definition of the word. Let's watch the cases of so-called animal homosexuality. Do such cases have any co-relation with human homosexuality? I contend that they are entirely dissimilar. This is the reason:

Animals do not make a distinction regarding the object of their sexual attention with reference to instinctive physical motions. For example when my dog is on heat, he will attempt to mount anything at all: including humans. He will push himself against a pole, against me, and against other dogs (male or female) in excercising the instinctive sexual motion. He does not see and develop a desire for a fellow male, he only makes instinctive sexual motions directed at anything. This is significantly different from humans who will see and have specific desires for persons of the same sex. No animal will engage in homosexual conduct if there is an available female on hand, against which it may throw its instinctive physical motions, but human homosexuality will actively disdain the female and specifically desire the male.

If you appreciate the foregoing, you will understand that animals are not in fact homosexual at all - in the proper sense of the word. Do they have a homosexual desire? Can you show me even one single animal that only sexually targets the same sex? You cannot, because animals are not homosexual in the definition of the word, and their so-called acts of homosexuality, comparatively speaking, are really just mindless acts of masturbation on any available entity.

Therefore, on either or both planks - the point must emphatically be made that animal acts of homosexuality can never be a premise for human homosexuality because as i have shown above -

    i. Animals are not homosexual within the context of homosexual desire and

   ii. Even if they are, it is the case that some animals are, and not all. It is the exception, rather than the rule, and as such this could not possibly make a case for human homo-sexuality being anything but the same: the exception and not the rule.

Given that the premise fails, the conclusion also naturally fails.

However, the Conclusion, if i might add, suffers independent problems of its own.

The conclusion states: "Therefore in the natural order of things homosexuality is not a deviance from expected biological behavior."

Can we define the word "deviation".

Without bothering to consult a dictionary, i suppose that we can all agree that a deviation is a departure from a norm, a variation or a digression.

"Expected biological behaviour", must clearly refer to the in-built sexual orientation geared towards biological goals. That's the only apt use of the word "biological" within that phrase. It is patently clear, from both the structure of reproductive organs, and the biological result of copulation (reproduction) that the sexual behaviour expected by nature should be heterosexual in nature. In addittion to the fact that homosexuality is not the norm in any human society, it could thus be said to be both un-natural and anti-social. At the very minimum, it definitely represents a deviation, however that may be defined.

With a heavy heart, although i do appreciate SEFAGO's good efforts and good reasoning, i am constrained on the basis of the deductions set forth above, to conclude that both his premises and his conclusion are deficient and significantly flawed even in terms of logic alone, but also in terms of sociological and biological considerations.

However: addressing the topic of this thread, i must state without much ado that although i previously had a murderous attitude to the very idea that any person could be gay, i concede that it is patently obvious, and also empirically verified, that some persons have abnormal hormonal imbalances which affect their sexual orientation. Some men have degrees of female hormones that render them effeminate, and some women (beard and all) have degrees of male hormones that render them mannish, and thus inclined to become lesbians. This is a scientific fact, and no person can contest this.

But in summary - it's ceratinly abnormal and unnatural and perhaps scientific solutions (such as hormonal re-balancing) should be sought.

Very good and well balanced argument, and very well articulated (It is quite impressive, considering what i have been seeing on nairaland). You found the numerous holes in my arguments that i was waiting for sagamite to find out (This isn't in anyways an insult to sagamite, this is just the truth). Cough Cough, You should help sagamite learn how to write as well as you did, that is how you show intellect not by roforofo fight- these was thetype of argument I was looking for. I wouldn't further contribute on this thread because the number of trolls far outweigh the number intellectuals