₦airaland Forum

Recent political pressure has resulted in a denial of the importance of the factor most strongly implicated by decades of previous clinical research--developmental factors, particularly the influence of parents. A review of the literature on male homosexuality reveals extensive reference to the prehomosexual boy's relational problems with both parents (West 1959, Socarides 1978, Evans 1969); among some researchers, the father-son relationship has been particularly implicated (Bieber et al 1962, Moberly 1983).

One psychoanalytic hypothesis for the connection between poor early father-son relationship and homosexuality is that during the critical gender-identity phase of development, the boy perceives the father as rejecting. As a result, he grows up failing to fully identify with his father and the masculinity he represents.

Nonmasculine or feminine behavior in boyhood has been repeatedly shown to be correlated with later homosexuality (Green, l987, Zuger, l988); taken together with related factors--particularly the often-reported alienation from same-sex peers and poor relationship with father--this suggests a failure to fully gender-identify. In its more extreme form, this same syndrome (usually resulting in homosexuality) is diagnosed as Childhood Gender-Identity Deficit (Zucker and Bradley, 1996).

One likely cause for "failure to identify" is a narcissistic injury inflicted by the father onto the son (who is usually temperamentally sensitive) during the preoedipal stage of the boy's development. This hurt appears to have been inflicted during the critical gender-identity phase when the boy must undertake the task of assuming a masculine identification. The hurt manifests itself as a defensive detachment from masculinity in the self, and in others. As an adult, the homosexual is often characterized by this complex which takes the form of "the hurt little boy" (Nicolosi, 1991).

I know some are concerned about it being reinforced to their kids. "Teaching kids to be gay" and that's understandable because children imitate behaviors of people they see around.

Environmental factors can subconsciously influence a person's sexuality

sirusX:
What we see around us in our formative stage influences us & build us to the people we are.

So it's best to watch one regards as norm

Why can't one have sex with a lion(ess)? Is it that it ain't normal or someone ain't tried it b4

Gggg102:
why homosexuality cannot be made illegal for religious reasons.

1. Nigeria is (supposed to be) a secular state. it is not ruled based on a particular religion and there is freedom of religion.
you can't make someone do something just because your religion says that is what to be done especially if that person doesn't adhere to your religion.

for the christians:

would you accept if pork was made illegal in the whole of Nigeria because Islam is against eating of pork?

would you accept if alcohol was banned completely because Islam forbids alcohol?

would you accept to wear hijab and cover yourself completely if it was made legal because of that's what Islam teaches?

for muslims:

would you accept if all prayers were made constitutionally to end in Jesus' name?

would you accept if polygamy was made illegal because Bible teaches one man one wife?

would you accept if ileya and all other Muslim activities were made illegal because they are not Christian based?

muric is still complaining that their rights are being violated.

for Christians, Muslims and other religious people :

would you agree if all religious activities were made illegal just because atheists don't believe in religious activities?

if you won't accept if other people would want to make laws for you based on their religious beliefs which you don't subscribe to, why would you want to make laws for others based on your religious beliefs which they don't subscribe to?

2. how does what two adults do in their privacy concern or affect you?
your neighbor might be a homosexual in secret, does it affect you in any way?
some people don't like it when others tell them how to raise their children talkless of telling adults how to live their private lives.

if homosexuality is illegal, would you start going from bedroom to bedroom to see if people are breaking the law?

if you find out someone is homosexuality, would it affect you in anyway?

what would you gain by making it illegal/reporting someone for practicing it?


making law for homosexuality is tantamount to making laws that approve of some sex styles.

you might as well make laws concerning how you must use the toilet.
you might as well making squatting on the toilet seat illegal.

you might as well make eating Garri without groundnut illegal just because you don't like Garri without groundnut.
or make dipping bread in tea illegal because you don't like it.


if you don't like homosexuality then fine, but you can't force your choice on someone. after all, there is freewill.

hopefulLandlord:
I've gone through this homosexuality arguments a lot in the past right here in this section and I've NEVER heard intelligent arguments against it

I find homosexuality, especially man to man (gay), to be disgusting and I even find anal sex with the opposite sex to be also disgusting but if there's someone that prefers the same sex, they're doing the did in the privacy of their home and are consenting adults who know what they're getting into and derive pleasure from it then why would I argue against such a thing? I feel it all boils down to trying to impose your own choices on others who made a different "choice". I use the word " Choice " loosely

It seems to me that those that keeps thinking gays should be imprisoned are even shortsighted

Judge: We found you guilty of having sex with a fellow man which is against bla bla bla of the constitution, we would now put you in a room filled entirely with no other than fellow men, you'll be there for fourteen years

That's akin to sentencing a glutton to 14 years of being given any food he wants at whatever quantity he wants it

Gggg102:
why homosexuality cannot be made illegal for religious reasons.

1. Nigeria is (supposed to be) a secular state. it is not ruled based on a particular religion and there is freedom of religion.
you can't make someone do something just because your religion says that is what to be done especially if that person doesn't adhere to your religion.

for the christians:

would you accept if pork was made illegal in the whole of Nigeria because Islam is against eating of pork?

would you accept if alcohol was banned completely because Islam forbids alcohol?

would you accept to wear hijab and cover yourself completely if it was made legal because of that's what Islam teaches?

for muslims:

would you accept if all prayers were made constitutionally to end in Jesus' name?

would you accept if polygamy was made illegal because Bible teaches one man one wife?

would you accept if ileya and all other Muslim activities were made illegal because they are not Christian based?

muric is still complaining that their rights are being violated.

for Christians, Muslims and other religious people :

would you agree if all religious activities were made illegal just because atheists don't believe in religious activities?

if you won't accept if other people would want to make laws for you based on their religious beliefs which you don't subscribe to, why would you want to make laws for others based on your religious beliefs which they don't subscribe to?

2. how does what two adults do in their privacy concern or affect you?
your neighbor might be a homosexual in secret, does it affect you in any way?
some people don't like it when others tell them how to raise their children talkless of telling adults how to live their private lives.

if homosexuality is illegal, would you start going from bedroom to bedroom to see if people are breaking the law?

if you find out someone is homosexuality, would it affect you in anyway?

what would you gain by making it illegal/reporting someone for practicing it?


making law for homosexuality is tantamount to making laws that approve of some sex styles.

you might as well make laws concerning how you must use the toilet.
you might as well making squatting on the toilet seat illegal.

you might as well make eating Garri without groundnut illegal just because you don't like Garri without groundnut.
or make dipping bread in tea illegal because you don't like it.


if you don't like homosexuality then fine, but you can't force your choice on someone. after all, there is freewill.

vaxx:
Sure i agree with you there is a freewill, but taking ethics into consideration, should we allow Mr president to go ahead with the sexual affairs with his secretary? at least they are two adult who agree on a mutual agreement. i belt YOU a democratic country like USA will disagree you. do well to check bill Clinton saga and his secretary case. or should we say, ok, the father can do it with her daughter if he is not doing it against her will. will that be acceptable. or should we live her alone, it is her dog. let them go ahead with bestiality.


there should be control system that should reflect our consensus agreement and not because some western country do it, therefore we have to adopt it. i remember during barrack Obama regime, majority of the Americans reject the then surgeon General(equivalent of NIGERIA MINISTER OF HEALTH) just because he was obese, they think that position is only qualify for moderate size. And USA listen. it their own perspective. lets recognize ours, our perspective as Africans do not tolerate homosexuality. though i do not advocate for jail term ,that is too extreme. rehabilitation home is not that bad.

AnonyNymous:
Bill Clinton's crime was lying under oath, and obstructing justice, not having an affair. Just saying. That's the reason he was impeached.

vaxx:
then you are not abreast with.... ....

budaatum:
The impeachment of Bill Clinton was initiated in December 1998 by the House of Representatives and led to a trial in the Senate for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice. Wiki

vaxx:
my point was not about what impeached bill Clinton, my point was about how the sexual allegation almost run his carrier, this is what the Federal judge Susan Webber Wright wrote the following about his citation when he lied

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false...."

The argument was that the crime was too minor to impeach and convict a president. The Democrats said that despite Clinton having made low crimes, seen with perjury, he should not be convicted as the Constitution said that a president may only be convicted of high crimes, treason and bribery, which according to the Democrats in the House and Senate, he has not done. which was the reasons i says justice was tamper with mercy.

budaatum:
Federal judge Susan Webber Wright was not dealing with Clinton's impeachment or his sexual morality. The he word "false" used twice in your quote was about his telling lies, and not about what he did with Monica!

"In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit."

And no justice was tempered with any mercy. The senate simply played party politics and could not get the two thirds (67 votes) required to impeach him.

vaxx:
my point was not about what impeached bill Clinton, my point was about how the sexual allegation almost run his carrier, this is what the Federal judge Susan Webber Wright wrote the following about his citation when he lied

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false...."

The argument was that the crime was too minor to impeach and convict a president. The Democrats said that despite Clinton having made low crimes, seen with perjury, he should not be convicted as the Constitution said that a president may only be convicted of high crimes, treason and bribery, which according to the Democrats in the House and Senate, he has not done. which was the reasons i says justice was tamper with mercy.

vaxx:
budaatum. this is the quote

vaxx:
then you are not abreast with the news, allegations was raised against bill Clinton sexual immorality in which he FORMERLY denied, since that will bring shame to the white house and likewise he would be disqualify for any public office . Bill Clinton’s behavior with Monica Lewinsky is an abuse of power, even if it was consensual. ''AMERICANS AGREE'' currently there is a current usa senator(ROY MOORE ) in such a mess now and the case is still yet to be resolved. even Donald trump will have been a culprit assuming the allegations levied against him were during his current presidency and not before. AMERICANS WERE ABLE TO TAMPER JUSTICE WITH MERCY, HE WAS NOT CONVICTED OF PERJURY AFTER HE ADMITTED.

budaatum:
That was said about the case being dealt with in court and had nothing to do with his impeachment which was dealt with by the House of Representatives and the House of Senate, and which was for perjury and obstruction of justice.

You could just have admitted your error when Anonymous corrected you!

budaatum:
[s]Just about everything you claimed here is untrue![/s]

After all, its not a reproductory sexual practice. Its sole purpose is for providing pleasure to those who engage in it, and its side effects (like reducing the risk of prostate cancer for those who aren't able to have regular sex) are irrelevant. Don't you think anyone caught masturbating should be sentenced to 14 years in prison?

Can you now see how ridiculous it sounds when you want to jail the gays?

I'm creating this thread in response to unsavory replies to my comment on the thread where Theresa May advocated for the legalization of same-sex marriage in Nigeria. Some people wished to have a more civil discussion with me on this topic. So PLEASE, if you cannot conduct yourself properly, PLEASE don't leave a comment on this thread, thanks.

So my question: 'Apart from your religious/cultural bias, what other reason do you have for being against its legalization?'. If you have no other reason, then I don't think it'd be fair to want your religious beliefs to dictate the laws of a secular state like Nigeria. Muslims are against alcohol, so in the same vein, why don't we ban alcohol and place a 14 year prison sentence as the penalty for its consumption?

Some like to argue that homosexuality is 'unnatural'. This has again been shown to be wrong, as its a phenomena WIDELY observed in nature. Over 1500 other animal species have been observed to practice homosexuality. What other definition for 'natural' do you have apart from the fact that its observed in nature?

Again, I've been met with the argument that "some animals kill each other, since that's natural, why don't we legalize killing". My response to that would be that human beings are social animals, and we create our laws to make sure things are fair for everyone. I'd like to ask what harm two consenting adults who decide to have homosexual intercourse do to you as a person? As I'm typing this, there's probably one gay couple some where in the world getting down with each other. Does it affect you in any way? Does it prevent you from going about your business? If not, why do you want to stop them from doing as they please with their genitals?

Homosexuality in animals sometimes serves specific purposes- there a species of birds who rape other males to death to prove that they are the alpha male. In Lions as I learned yesterday, they might have homosexual intercourse, in the absence of females until they're able to start their own pride. Dolphins have been observed to have homosexual intercourse purely for pleasure. Rats will have sex with other male rats if there is not female available, and refuse to have sex with females later on even if they later encounter females. Penguins and parrots choose their partner and stay in a monogamous relationship with them irrespective of the gender.

In humans, from birth, some exhibit homosexual tendencies from a young age, and the reason is unknown. Some SUBCONSCIOUSLY 'learn' the behaviour. Science has shown thats sexuality is fluid. In a study by the late Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, the reason for some 'learned' homosexuality could stem from relationship problems with their same sex parents. Of course, extreme left-wing politics has prevented some of these studies from being considered. Here's an excerpt:


Read more here

https://www.nairaland.com/4427354/childhood-emotional-neglect-physical-abuse

But this isn't the case in ALL human homosexuals. Just as in other animals, some have gay sex because the opposite sex aren't available, but some just naturally prefer the same sex.


All that aside, however, I see no reason to make homosexuality a criminal offence- it doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, and like masturbation, its done in the privacy of one's bedroom. I know some are concerned about it being reinforced to their kids. "Teaching kids to be gay" and that's understandable because children imitate behaviors of people they see around. But the fact is that homosexuality can't be 'taught', you're either gay, bisexual, or not. Environmental factors can subconsciously influence a person's sexuality, however, and so I propose this: Homosexuality laws similar to those in Russia. Its legal, but 'homosexual propaganda' isn't- promoting it by unnecessary flamboyant street parades, and the likes. Its kept as private business between those who want to. And I agree with that whole heartedly, until science effectively figures out everything about it. I'm just strongly against its CRIMINALIZATION here in Nigeria.