UyiIredia:


Yes.

Knew it!
You talk about all kinds of stuff there too, unlike NL.
And nawa for your hatred for gays ooo

4kings:

Knew it!
You talk about all kinds of stuff there too, unlike NL.
And nawa for your hatred for gays ooo

I really and truly don't hate gays. LGBT rights is one thing, being gay is another thing. Quora is much broader than NL with a global audience. Not so much for NL.

UyiIredia:


I really and truly don't hate gays. LGBT rights is one thing, being gay is another thing. Quora is much broader than NL with a global audience. Not so much for NL.

Hmm, okay!
So what's your opinion on the 14 years jail term for being gay?

4kings:

Hmm, okay!
So what's your opinion on the 14 years jail term for being gay?

Will settle down to answer this and my take on LGBT rights in some detail.

UyiIredia:


Will settle down to answer this and my take on LGBT rights in some detail.

Okey dokey.

4kings:

Hmm, okay!
So what's your opinion on the 14 years jail term for being gay?

I agree with it so far it's not enforced and acts as what I think is more of f*** you to Western liberals trying to force their values on African countries when they hold political power. Initially I was AGAINST it and felt the societal opposition to homosexuality was adequate enough.

Now I don't think being gay is a choice. It's a natural and created thing, I literally have zero need to resolve God creating gays with it being a sin like Christians & Muslims do. I don't think you should be violent against gays or LGBT just because. I won't say I don't discriminate against LGBT's. I do. But I can see myself disagreeing with certain discriminations like banning LGBT's from workplace. Naturally, context matters.

I think it's immoral or more precisely, I judge it like one does disliked fetishes (like cuckolds, people who gain sexual pleasure from being peeed on or seeing their spouses bleeped etc) or quirks (like coprophagia - eating one's shit).

I think all such stuff including homosexuality are wrong and harmless but if you do it in your privacy then I couldn't care less. That to me is like allowing space for someone to be slightly overweight versus being obese. And so, when one starts normalising it as healthy and good and fighting to bring it into positive acknowledgement by the wider society I think it is very problematic for society as compared to when 'kept in the dark'. Society can thrive despite gay acceptance, never because of it. No less than the Nazis and ancient Rome thrived despite anti-Semitism and Jewish massacre or open immigration. The Nazis robbed themselves of some if the best minds on the planet since Jews are very distinguished when it comes to scientific and technological contributions, Einstein was a German Jew before fleeing Nazi Germany. Ancient Rome was ended by hordes of barbarians and betrayed by the very Germanic peoples it freely allowed to migrate into and join its armies.

What is the danger? LGBT rights harm and disrupt the natural and helpful course of gender, sexuality and family from how it is designed. If that was all I would even be less worried since one may find a way to compensate. But that's not all. One has to look at things from a wider perspective so I link LGBT rights to other socio-political issues and views. This is where the slippery slope argument comes into play and it is a very powerful argument.

In Nigeria and all of SSA for all our silliness when it comes to religion or national development we cannot afford to kill what is called common sense. Govt is bad at providing security, no one needs to dash you brain that walls work. In the US and the West they call border walls to stop criminals and unfavourable illegal immigration overwhelming their govt racist and inefficient. Much of Africa being over-religious and traditional stifle free thought and critical inquiry. The educated or wise amongst us value these ideas. These are foundations of the West that took them into dominance but SJW (social justice warriors) threaten that and they have a generation taking it for granted. Animal rights cannot cross your mind when hunger dey Mama you but they are so food-filled that they can bother about putting rats, dogs, cats, chicken and cows that people eat etc (even plants in Sweden) on the same legal standing as man. If transgenders were a tiny fringe stated to deny biological reality and thoroughly checked to before sex change, then one can tolerate it but social liberals carelessly rubber-stamp it and sex-change little kids and teens without regard to mental illness, psychological health and even the health of kids. They want to redefine or destroy important concepts of gender fundamental to working civilization even as they perform surgeries that make FGM look like saint Peter.

The point the previous paragraph makes is that social liberals OF TODAY have a very poor grasp moral boundaries and their importance. It is so bad they have to be educated on why physical boundaries like walls and clothes are important. Remember, feminists were agitating that women should be allowed to be bare-chested like men without having indecency. So bad that they let kids who don't know anything decide their gender or choices parents should guide them in. This means that they progressively get worse in the perversions they tolerate or encourage from misplaced empathy. And in my experience, many liberals I speak with show the same lack of judgement in LGBT rights to other issues concerning family.

If at least liberals showed some sense of moral strictness as liberals in older times did I could compromise on LGBT rights even though I STRONGLY disagree for what I think is a more important aim of keeping society cohesive. At least, their common sense in other areas could compensate to keep society working well. But reading Quora and news made me see its SO BAD no compromise should be had. Before Quora I was totally against anti-sodomy laws including Nigeria's own. After Quora I changed my mind. Liberals who still have common sense should wake the radical liberals up. Then we can have a rational debate. All I do on Quora (and I am going to stop for a bit) is trying to give them basic common sense.

UyiIredia:


I agree with it so far it's not enforced and acts as what I think is more of f*** you to Western liberals trying to force their values on African countries when they hold political power. Initially I was AGAINST it and felt the societal opposition to homosexuality was adequate enough.

Now I don't think being gay is a choice. It's a natural and created thing, I literally have zero need to resolve God creating gays with it being a sin like Christians & Muslims do. I don't think you should be violent against gays or LGBT just because. I won't say I don't discriminate against LGBT's. I do. But I can see myself disagreeing with certain discriminations like banning LGBT's from workplace. Naturally, context matters.

I think it's immoral or more precisely, I judge it like one does disliked fetishes (like cuckolds, people who gain sexual pleasure from being peeed on or seeing their spouses bleeped etc) or quirks (like coprophagia - eating one's shit).

I think all such stuff including homosexuality are wrong and harmless but if you do it in your privacy then I couldn't care less. That to me is like allowing space for someone to be slightly overweight versus being obese. And so, when one starts normalising it as healthy and good and fighting to bring it into positive acknowledgement by the wider society I think it is very problematic for society as compared to when 'kept in the dark'. Society can thrive despite gay acceptance, never because of it. No less than the Nazis and ancient Rome thrived despite anti-Semitism and Jewish massacre or open immigration. The Nazis robbed themselves of some if the best minds on the planet since Jews are very distinguished when it comes to scientific and technological contributions, Einstein was a German Jew before fleeing Nazi Germany. Ancient Rome was ended by hordes of barbarians and betrayed by the very Germanic peoples it freely allowed to migrate into and join its armies.

What is the danger? LGBT rights harm and disrupt the natural and helpful course of gender, sexuality and family from how it is designed. If that was all I would even be less worried since one may find a way to compensate. But that's not all. One has to look at things from a wider perspective so I link LGBT rights to other socio-political issues and views. This is where the slippery slope argument comes into play and it is a very powerful argument.

In Nigeria and all of SSA for all our silliness when it comes to religion or national development we cannot afford to kill what is called common sense. Govt is bad at providing security, no one needs to dash you brain that walls work. In the US and the West they call border walls to stop criminals and unfavourable illegal immigration overwhelming their govt racist and inefficient. Much of Africa being over-religious and traditional stifle free thought and critical inquiry. The educated or wise amongst us value these ideas. These are foundations of the West that took them into dominance but SJW (social justice warriors) threaten that and they have a generation taking it for granted. Animal rights cannot cross your mind when hunger dey Mama you but they are so food-filled that they can bother about putting rats, dogs, cats, chicken and cows that people eat etc (even plants in Sweden) on the same legal standing as man. If transgenders were a tiny fringe stated to deny biological reality and thoroughly checked to before sex change, then one can tolerate it but social liberals carelessly rubber-stamp it and sex-change little kids and teens without regard to mental illness, psychological health and even the health of kids. They want to redefine or destroy important concepts of gender fundamental to working civilization even as they perform surgeries that make FGM look like saint Peter.

The point the previous paragraph makes is that social liberals OF TODAY have a very poor grasp moral boundaries and their importance. It is so bad they have to be educated on why physical boundaries like walls and clothes are important. Remember, feminists were agitating that women should be allowed to be bare-chested like men without having indecency. So bad that they let kids who don't know anything decide their gender or choices parents should guide them in. This means that they progressively get worse in the perversions they tolerate or encourage from misplaced empathy. And in my experience, many liberals I speak with show the same lack of judgement in LGBT rights to other issues concerning family.

If at least liberals showed some sense of moral strictness as liberals in older times did I could compromise on LGBT rights even though I STRONGLY disagree for what I think is a more important aim of keeping society cohesive. At least, their common sense in other areas could compensate to keep society working well. But reading Quora and news made me see its SO BAD no compromise should be had. Before Quora I was totally against anti-sodomy laws including Nigeria's own. After Quora I changed my mind. Liberals who still have common sense should wake the radical liberals up. Then we can have a rational debate. All I do on Quora (and I am going to stop for a bit) is trying to give them basic common sense.

Uyi Iredia, you sound like a man trying to balance 2 opposing ideas but ends up speaking from both sides of his mouth.

You prefer a "little" discrimination against gays (verbal abuse/shunning) to "heavy" discrimination (violence and 14 year imprisonment). What a hypocritical notion.

You are not as intelligent as you think you sound with all that verbose nonsense rationalizing how you feel for gays but still discriminate against them.

Oga, stand firm in one belief- IF YOU BELIEVE THAT GAYS HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY LIKE IN PRIVATE, THEN THERE SHOULD NOT BE A THREAT OF 14 YEAR IMPRISONMENT OR SOCIETAL EMBARRASSMENT.

pls I want someone to l me abt this emmanuel tv

can someone pls give me evidence against this and prove there is nothing spiritual

Forgot about this... Didn't think you would reply this fast.

UyiIredia:


I agree with it so far it's not enforced and acts as what I think is more of f*** you to Western liberals trying to force their values on African countries when they hold political power.[b][/b] Initially I was AGAINST it and felt the societal opposition to homosexuality was adequate enough.

OK Fine!

Now I don't think being gay is a choice.

Hmm, i disagree... There are cases where one especially in the west gets bored and tries to experiment...
Some of those guys are weird like that.

It's a natural and created thing, I literally have zero need to resolve God creating gays with it being a sin like Christians & Muslims do. I don't think you should be violent against gays or LGBT just because. I won't say I don't discriminate against LGBT's. I do. But I can see myself disagreeing with certain discriminations like banning LGBT's from workplace. Naturally, context matters.

I think it's immoral or more precisely, I judge it like one does disliked fetishes (like cuckolds, people who gain sexual pleasure from being peeed on or seeing their spouses bleeped etc) or quirks (like coprophagia - eating one's shit).

I think all such stuff including homosexuality are wrong and harmless but if you do it in your privacy then I couldn't care less. That to me is like allowing space for someone to be slightly overweight versus being obese. And so, when one starts normalising it as healthy and good and fighting to bring it into positive acknowledgement by the wider society I think it is very problematic for society as compared to when 'kept in the dark'. Society can thrive despite gay acceptance, never because of it. No less than the Nazis and ancient Rome thrived despite anti-Semitism and Jewish massacre or open immigration. The Nazis robbed themselves of some if the best minds on the planet since Jews are very distinguished when it comes to scientific and technological contributions, Einstein was a German Jew before fleeing Nazi Germany. Ancient Rome was ended by hordes of barbarians and betrayed by the very Germanic peoples it freely allowed to migrate into and join its armies.

What is the danger? LGBT rights harm and disrupt the natural and helpful course of gender, sexuality and family from how it is designed. If that was all I would even be less worried since one may find a way to compensate. But that's not all. One has to look at things from a wider perspective so I link LGBT rights to other socio-political issues and views. This is where the slippery slope argument comes into play and it is a very powerful argument.

In Nigeria and all of SSA for all our silliness when it comes to religion or national development we cannot afford to kill what is called common sense. Govt is bad at providing security, no one needs to dash you brain that walls work. In the US and the West they call border walls to stop criminals and unfavourable illegal immigration overwhelming their govt racist and inefficient. Much of Africa being over-religious and traditional stifle free thought and critical inquiry. The educated or wise amongst us value these ideas. These are foundations of the West that took them into dominance but SJW (social justice warriors) threaten that and they have a generation taking it for granted. Animal rights cannot cross your mind when hunger dey Mama you but they are so food-filled that they can bother about putting rats, dogs, cats, chicken and cows that people eat etc (even plants in Sweden) on the same legal standing as man. If transgenders were a tiny fringe stated to deny biological reality and thoroughly checked to before sex change, then one can tolerate it but social liberals carelessly rubber-stamp it and sex-change little kids and teens without regard to mental illness, psychological health and even the health of kids. They want to redefine or destroy important concepts of gender fundamental to working civilization even as they perform surgeries that make FGM look like saint Peter.

The point the previous paragraph makes is that social liberals OF TODAY have a very poor grasp moral boundaries and their importance. It is so bad they have to be educated on why physical boundaries like walls and clothes are important. Remember, feminists were agitating that women should be allowed to be bare-chested like men without having indecency. So bad that they let kids who don't know anything decide their gender or choices parents should guide them in. This means that they progressively get worse in the perversions they tolerate or encourage from misplaced empathy. And in my experience, many liberals I speak with show the same lack of judgement in LGBT rights to other issues concerning family.

If at least liberals showed some sense of moral strictness as liberals in older times did I could compromise on LGBT rights even though I STRONGLY disagree for what I think is a more important aim of keeping society cohesive. At least, their common sense in other areas could compensate to keep society working well. But reading Quora and news made me see its SO BAD no compromise should be had. Before Quora I was totally against anti-sodomy laws including Nigeria's own. After Quora I changed my mind. Liberals who still have common sense should wake the radical liberals up. Then we can have a rational debate. All I do on Quora (and I am going to stop for a bit) is trying to give them basic common sense.

Wow!!! Nice points.
The points on coprophagia, kids deciding their gender and most especially on enforcing some liberal views are valid...
Anyways, i don't know if the gay law is enforced in Nigeria(i don't think so), but that is still very harsh as it turns them into an outcast.
Don't know what more to say for now.
Need to see things from different perspectives and read more discussions.

UyiIredia & 4kings, without either of you prevaricating, what specifically is your beef, problem(s) with and evil, in two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour?

MuttleyLaff:
UyiIredia & 4kings, without either of you prevaricating, what specifically is your beef, problem(s) with and evil, in two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour?

I don't have any problems with gays... read my post again.
where i flowed with UyiIredia was on enforcing of some liberal views like, changing of a child gender based on relying on what the child feels and other absurdities the 'LEFT WING' normally impose.

4kings:
I don't have any problems with gays... read my post again.
where i flowed with UyiIredia was on enforcing of some liberal views like, changing of a child gender based on relying on what the child feels and other absurdities the 'LEFT WING' normally impose.

4kings I now understand by your admission that you dont have any problems with gays, but without you prevaricating, what evil is there, in two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour?

Also what specifically is it you find weird, in two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour?

UyiIredia:

What is the danger? LGBT rights harm and disrupt the natural and helpful course of gender, sexuality and family from how it is designed. If that was all I would even be less worried since one may find a way to compensate. But that's not all. One has to look at things from a wider perspective so I link LGBT rights to other socio-political issues and views. This is where the slippery slope argument comes into play and it is a very powerful argument.

Designed by who?

As far as I know no person designed our social structures, they are the result of ongoing and ancient influences. BTW studies so far have shown there is no change in the percentage of sexuality in children of LGBT parents.

What slippery slope? Why is allowing people the right every other adult human has to pursue a relationship with another consenting adult human a slippery slope?

If at least liberals showed some sense of moral strictness as liberals in older times did I could compromise on LGBT rights even though I STRONGLY disagree for what I think is a more important aim of keeping society cohesive. At least, their common sense in other areas could compensate to keep society working well. But reading Quora and news made me see its SO BAD no compromise should be had. Before Quora I was totally against anti-sodomy laws including Nigeria's own. After Quora I changed my mind. Liberals who still have common sense should wake the radical liberals up. Then we can have a rational debate. All I do on Quora (and I am going to stop for a bit) is trying to give them basic common sense.

So for you the only way to correct what you view as ills is to blanket deny people of the rights other humans would otherwise enjoy in similar circumstances? How is that common sense?

UyiIredia:

I think it's immoral or more precisely, I judge it like one does disliked fetishes (like cuckolds, people who gain sexual pleasure from being peeed on or seeing their spouses bleeped etc) or quirks (like coprophagia - eating one's shit).

What of people who drink their piss, are they also immoral?

LordReed:


What of people who drink their piss, are they also immoral?

I am allowed to withhold judgement on some things. I am also allowed to remain ambivalent on some things like unsolicited smooching. Good or bad, depends on my mood or the context.

UyiIredia:


I am allowed to withhold judgement on some things. I am also allowed to remain ambivalent on some things like unsolicited smooching. Good or bad, depends on my mood or the context.

Sure but you come off as sermonizing and preaching morals against the things you don't like. You call coprophagia immoral but have nothing to say about piss drinkers, doesn't sound like you really have a moral framework your pronouncements are based on, you just don't like certain human behaviours therefore they are immoral to you.

LordReed:

Designed by who?

By God or evolution bro. Take your pick. But do not deny that lifeforms including animals are designed to operate in a particular way given how their systems are structured.

LordReed:

As far as I know no person designed our social structures, they are the result of ongoing and ancient influences. BTW studies so far have shown there is no change in the percentage of sexuality in children of LGBT parents.

Humans and other social animals cannot think beyond what their brains are designed to.

LordReed:

What slippery slope? Why is allowing people the right every other adult human has to pursue a relationship with another consenting adult human a slippery slope?

When a person asks that question I judge them incapable of assessing the importance of moral boundaries or at least on the issues of sexuality as it pertains to familial well-being they show poor judgement.

Now read my points CAREFULLY.

First of all we are in trouble if every consenting adult human can have sex. Incest & necrophilia can work under that but I will assume you aren't going that far. Even in normative straight relations it's sometimes best to abandon or refrain relations for reasons of money, education, life goals, familial differences, sexual incompatibility etc.

Two, and LGBT supporters by definition are incapable of getting it, the normal relations is between a man and woman. It's literally what bodies are designed for. Presumably, the same extends to raising kids. But that is not were the slippery slope lies.

Three is that the slippery slope is that a socially liberal mind incapable by definition of seeing the importance of boundaries keeping straight sex relations normative and wants to push LGBT relations as normal seeks to push the boundaries of what is not just sexually normative (or normal) in a way that is bad for family typically from a misplaced sense of empathy disregarding or ignorant of societal pillars.

So for example, a social liberal will say transgenders should be accepted and never criticized so as not to hurt them. Even as transgender rights confuse the boundaries between male and female that is denies biological facts, hampering women's rights and rubbishes feminist causes. The social liberal will say flogging is child abuse in all contexts whereas social conservatives know flogging done well is for discipline to keep law and order and have a healthy respect for rules and punishment.

Porn cannot be immoral for the liberal and is harmless, nothing wrong with two people at it on screens. Conservatives know that porn insidiously sexualizes women in a way that ironically undermines liberals message to not sexualize them; makes something meant for privacy as with shitting or bathing a public affair all to satisfy a fantasizing habit that is not a real thing. It's a cynical way of making money for a short high like drugs are.

BTW precisely how is it consenting adults in a room if they put the stuff on porn?

Even if I were to assume you show common sense and agree with conservatives on the said matters not on this score_of gay rights. I hope you understand that some sexual relationships are bad and some are okay. We may disagree in details but no matter. Consenting adults same sex relations is wrong going against the standard of straight sex fundamental to human continuation and family. It can be tolerated but never encouraged, normalised or celebrated since that puts the highlighted at risk or skews it in a bad way. And if you want to play the harmless card incest and sex with or between minors can be normalised as harmless. Society even functioned in the Bible with incest but explaining that may be beyond you.

Read CAREFULLY then reply.

LordReed:

So for you the only way to correct what you view as ills is to blanket deny people of the rights other humans would otherwise enjoy in similar circumstances? How is that common sense?

You have a REALLY NAIVE view of rights. There is something, a valid reason, causing denial of such rights. Rights are never absolute and come with responsibilities that MUST be constrained. I even mentioned straight people have their rights to have sex limited for different reasons. Age is one.

Liberal as I went in not advocating for NOT punishing gays for being gay, doing it in your privacy but sequestering it underground in society it is not enough. It must be on the same platform as straight sex despite clear differences and cons. Distracting me with consenting adults as if gay relations doesn't complicate non-contingent or deceptive straight relations further.

The baba of everything is that you are so wise you probably want to make a society where so am not sure if a woman has pussy. Clap for yourself! And as you clap answer me on if you think transgenders reveal an absurd an unhealthy trait or if you think they are a healthy variation of human sexuality

Grow common sense. I can only plant a seed. It either dies out or you see the relevance.

JeromeBlack:



Uyi Iredia, you sound like a man trying to balance 2 opposing ideas but ends up speaking from both sides of his mouth.

You prefer a "little" discrimination against gays (verbal abuse/shunning) to "heavy" discrimination (violence and 14 year imprisonment). What a hypocritical notion.

You are not as intelligent as you think you sound with all that verbose nonsense rationalizing how you feel for gays but still discriminate against them.

Oga, stand firm in one belief- IF YOU BELIEVE THAT GAYS HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY LIKE IN PRIVATE, THEN THERE SHOULD NOT BE A THREAT OF 14 YEAR IMPRISONMENT OR SOCIETAL EMBARRASSMENT.

I think life more less involves striking a balance between two or more sides and knowing when to go extreme.

I don't think the best way to handle the matter of homosexuality is to be hard on them. The West tried that and failed miserably, they were once harsher on them than Africans were. Look more to China on that. They have been quite effective at stifling the porn scourge and containing gay rights despite attaining developed status. The same for Japan though for a long time they had an erotic art (read porn) culture.

Don't explicitly support or harshly oppose, know when to strike hard in response to their misadventures without drawing pity for their cause. I think that's how you stop the LGBT rights movement.

MuttleyLaff:
4kings I now understand by your admission that you dont have any problems with gays, but without you prevaricating, what evil is there, in two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour?

Also what specifically is it you find weird, in two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour?

You LGBT rights people always glorify same-sex relationships as if they are all like that. Okay, why don't you use the same logic for incestuous and pedophilic relations. That is assuming you don't even already approved of them.

Because trust me whatever biological excuse you make to castigate incest and pedophilia can be aplied to homosexuality to show it is absurd and wrong. Man was made for woman. End of story. Don't celebrate the abnormal because you want to have pity.

That's how liberals on Quora have slowly started saying, let's have pity and let's allow animated child porn and child sex dolls for pedophiles so they can safely masturbate to satisfy pedophilic fantasies and avoid harm to children. Liberals are good for a conscience on when society is being over-strict but you guys tend to have a misplaced sense of empathy on some social issues.

4kings:
Forgot about this... Didn't think you would reply this fast.

OK Fine!

[quote author=4kings post=75065381]

Hmm, i disagree... There are cases where one especially in the west gets bored and tries to experiment...
Some of those guys are weird like that.

Yeah. Sometimes that happens but believe it or not some people are born gay. I have read and watched a bit on the issue. Some people like the same sex from their earliest/puberty years just as us straight people liked the opposite sex from our earliest/puberty years. So it's both. Some bi-curious straight people experiment and choose to be gay, some bisexuals 'stay gay' since they prefer same-sex relationships and some are born gay and stay gay, and I have heard some are born gay and change straight so there's that but that seems rare.

[quote author=4kings post=75065381]
Wow!!! Nice points.
The points on coprophagia, kids deciding their gender and most especially on enforcing some liberal views are valid...
Anyways, i don't know if the gay law is enforced in Nigeria(i don't think so), but that is still very harsh as it turns them into an outcast.
Don't know what more to say for now.
Need to see things from different perspectives and read more discussions.

Sure. Read more form your views but keep in mind something I soon noted about social liberals. They tend to progress into the absurd from a misplaced empathy. Like with immigration crisis where they indiscriminately allow in migrants out of pity which is very bad for a country.

UyiIredia:
You LGBT rights people always glorify same-sex relationships as if they are all like that. Okay, why don't you use the same logic for incestuous and pedophilic relations. That is assuming you don't even already approved of them.

Because trust me whatever biological excuse you make to castigate incest and pedophilia can be aplied to homosexuality to show it is absurd and wrong. Man was made for woman. End of story. Don't celebrate the abnormal because you want to have pity.

That's how liberals on Quora have slowly started saying, let's have pity and let's allow animated child porn and child sex dolls for pedophiles so they can safely masturbate to satisfy pedophilic fantasies and avoid harm to children. Liberals are good for a conscience on when society is being over-strict but you guys tend to have a misplaced sense of empathy on some social issues.

UyiIredia, please stick to the purview of the question. We will come to incestous and pedophilic relations later so please dont deviate from the original question and its parameters

Now UyiIredia, without you prevaricating, what evil is there, in two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour?

UyiIredia:


I think life more less involves striking a balance between two or more sides and knowing when to go extreme.

I don't think the best way to handle the matter of homosexuality is to be hard on them. The West tried that and failed miserably, they were once harsher on them than Africans were. Look more to China on that. They have been quite effective at stifling the porn scourge and containing gay rights despite attaining developed status. The same for Japan though for a long time they had an erotic art (read porn) culture.

Don't explicitly support or harshly oppose, know when to strike hard in response to their misadventures without drawing pity for their cause. I think that's how you stop the LGBT rights movement.

Nonsense.

The best thing to do is to give them equal marriage rights and freedom of expression......and mind your own business

MuttleyLaff:
UyiIredia, please stick to the purview of the question. We will come to incestous and pedophilic relations later so please dont deviate from the original question and its parameters

Now UyiIredia, without you prevaricating, what evil is there, in two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour?

Man was made for woman not for man end of story. And I drew parallels with kids and family members to make a point then you start playing ignorant. Why don't you tackle the answer I gave and stop running away from incest and pedophilia as clear parallels.

UyiIredia:
Man was made for woman not for man end of story.

In an ideal world, that maybe the case, that "man was made for woman" unfortunately, we dont have and don't live in an ideal world like that

UyiIredia:
And I drew parallels with kids and family members to make a point then you start playing ignorant.

You'll notice the purview of the question centres around two easy going, ordinary consenting adults.

Just you know, it is the same-sex relationships, that are just like two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour that we are talking off here, not the promiscuous, unbridled, unrestrained, unchaste and infidelity relationships

UyiIredia:
Why don't you tackle the answer I gave and stop running away from incest and pedophilia as clear parallels.

I intimated that we will come to incestous and pedophilic relations later, and then implored you to please not deviate from the original question and its parameters, but if to soothe you, then the following is what I'll say about incest and pedophila

Incest and pedophila relationships often and predominantly are dishonest, untruthful and emotionally abusive relationships. Incest and pedophila is a detriment to another person or a neighbour. Incest and pedophila is a betrayal of another person or a neighbour. Incest and pedophila are cheating on another person. Incest and pedophila are harmful to a another person or neighbour.

Now please UyiIredia, say clearly and distinctly, and without again prevaricating, what evil is there, in two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour?

MuttleyLaff:
In an ideal world, that maybe the case, that "man was made for woman" unfortunately, we dont have and don't live in an ideal world like that

We do. Your judgement is spoilt. Man and women are specifically designed to complement. And by the way that was the answer to your question. A committed, faithful, truthful, caring, honest relationship between same sex is still messed up at the same-sex point.

Put incest, necrophilia, bestial & pedophilic relationship and it still applies.

MuttleyLaff:

You'll notice the purview of the question centres around two easy going, ordinary consenting adults.

Indeed, indeed. I am keen to note that gay rights supporters ALWAYS emphasize positive same-sex relationships never its darker sides which nothing is without.

MuttleyLaff:

Just you know, it is the same-sex relationships, that are just like two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour that we are talking off here, not the promiscuous, unbridled, unrestrained, unchaste and infidelity relationships

Oh so we ignore the bad ones and just the good ones. Okay then at this point I MUST ask a similar question. It won't be fair when only you play that card now.

MuttleyLaff:

I intimated that we will come to incestous and pedophilic relations later, and then implored you to please not deviate from the original question and its parameters, but if to soothe you, then the following is what I'll say about incest and pedophila

I didn't deviate. I answered you question fro. The get-go by noting that men were designed for women not men. To make it plain now as long as it's same-sex it doesn't redeem it's good qualities. Same-sex is wrong. You know a committed, faithful, caring and honest murderer is still a murderer. And yes murderers can care for people usually aside from the ones they murder, sometimes they care for the ones they murder. Life's like that.

MuttleyLaff:

Incest and pedophila relationships often and predominantly are dishonest, untruthful and emotionally abusive relationships. Incest and pedophila is a detriment to another person or a neighbour. Incest and pedophila is a betrayal of another person or a neighbour. Incest and pedophila are cheating on another person. Incest and pedophila are harmful to a another person or neighbour.

So you are so bigoted against pedophilia and incest you can only see negatives. There are no committed, caring, honest and mutually beneficial pedophilic and incestuous relationships right?

How are incest and pedophilia harmful, cheating, betraying and detrimental? Give reasons and evidence please.

MuttleyLaff:

Now please UyiIredia, say clearly and distinctly, and without again prevaricating, what evil is there, in two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour?

The same-sex. Now switch same-sex with incestuous and pedophilic and let me know precisely why your moral recruited self-corrects on those.

UyiIredia:


By God or evolution bro. Take your pick. But do not deny that lifeforms including animals are designed to operate in a particular way given how their systems are structured.

I was going to make a lengthy reply but on second thoughts our fundamental disagreement will have to sorted out or else we'll just be talking past each other.

You believe humans and their social systems and/or mores were designed or in essence handed to them as an established order, I do not neither does evolution dictate any such thing.

As far as I know humans and everything about them arose as a result of the operation of physical forces and artificial pressures brought about by our rising intelligence.

This disagreement is fundamental to how you and I view the world and so colours our views on social ills and their solutions. If you are ok discussing this further fine, if not I won't waste my time outlining my view to someone who is just going use his godtinted glasses to look at them.

LordReed:


I was going to make a lengthy reply but on second thoughts our fundamental disagreement will have to sorted out or else we'll just be talking past each other.

You believe humans and their social systems and/or mores were designed or in essence handed to them as an established order, I do not neither does evolution dictate any such thing.

As far as I know humans and everything about them arose as a result of the operation of physical forces and artificial pressures brought about by our rising intelligence.

This disagreement is fundamental to how you and I view the world and so colours our views on social ills and their solutions. If you are ok discussing this further fine, if not I won't waste my time outlining my view to someone who is just going use his godtinted glasses to look at them.

In my experience it is far from new for atheists to treat as religious when deism is irreligious.

UyiIredia:


In my experience it is far from new for atheists to treat as religious when deism is irreligious.

Where did I mention religion?

UyiIredia:
We do.

Are you by any remote chance trying to advance a point that we live in a perfect world?

UyiIredia:
Your judgement is spoilt.

You judgement is skewed

UyiIredia:
Man and women are specifically designed to complement.

This is not exclusive to only and just "man and women" sic, as man and man too, equally are designed to complement.

UyiIredia:
And by the way that was the answer to your question. A committed, faithful, truthful, caring, honest relationship between same sex is still messed up at the same-sex point.

My question, correctly was:
Clearly and distinctly, and without again prevaricating, what evil is there, in two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour?

UyiIredia:
Put incest, necrophilia, bestial & pedophilic relationship and it still applies.

Each one of these, falls foul of at least one, two, three and more, if not all of honesty, betrayal, mutual permission and/or agreement for the relationship to happen (i.e. consent), infidelity, disloyalty, treachery, dishonesty, cheating on, betray hurt another person, harming a dead body, object, animal another person, a neighbour, sexually intimate with a close relation etcetera

UyiIredia:
Indeed, indeed. I am keen to note that gay rights supporters ALWAYS emphasize positive same-sex relationships never its darker sides which nothing is without

Heterosexual relationships too has its fair share of dark and darker sides, so dark sides are not peculiar with same sex relationships alone

UyiIredia:
Oh so we ignore the bad ones and just the good ones. Okay then at this point I MUST ask a similar question. It won't be fair when only you play that card now.

I see you are unwilling and hesitant to say what evil is there, in two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour, but unlike you, I will bite the bullet, then gladly outrightly, clearly and distinctly answer the question without a hint of vacillation

UyiIredia:
I didn't deviate. I answered you question fro the get-go by noting that men were designed for women not men. To make it plain now as long as it's same-sex it doesn't redeem it's good qualities. Same-sex is wrong. You know a committed, faithful, caring and honest murderer is still a murderer. And yes murderers can care for people usually aside from the ones they murder, sometimes they care for the ones they murder. Life's like that.

Dont you think, that is a huge leap?

So you are now using murderers to leverage with. Hmm? You are comparing two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour with others who have harmed and unlawfully killed other humans without any justification or valid excuse. Hmm? SMH.

UyiIredia:
So you are so bigoted against pedophilia and incest you can only see negatives. There are no committed, caring, honest and mutually beneficial pedophilic and incestuous relationships right?

I can understand some having a disorder called called homophobia, but please dont let us get sick and twisted in the head here with your "committed, caring, honest and mutually beneficial pedophilic and incestuous relationships"
Can a child give consent to having a sexual relationship with an adult? Hmm? SMH.

UyiIredia:
How are incest and pedophilia harmful, cheating, betraying and detrimental? Give reasons and evidence please.

Incest is treachery, harmful, cheating, betraying and detrimental to another person(s). No father will give his blessing that his son should have a sexual relationship with his mother. Show me as evidence, in post modern society, a father, that has ever given his blessing that his son can fairk his wife, his son's mother. Incest relationship is stale and expired, it has gone past it's "use-by" date. I dont have to discuss genetic disorders in excessive detail, so I will leave it at the "use-by" date juncture, as I know you got the drift

Aw, c'mon, is this temerity or what? You are asking how pedophilia is harmful, cheating, betraying and detrimental?
Are you saying you don't know that pedophilia has to do with sexual feelings directed towards children? SMH.

UyiIredia:
The same-sex. Now switch same-sex with incestuous and pedophilic and let me know precisely why your moral recruited self-corrects on those.

Two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour

You still havent been able to clearly and distinctly, and without again prevaricating, say what evil is there, in the above same sex relationship

LordReed:


Where did I mention religion?

Only the religious look through God-tinted glasses on moral matters.

UyiIredia:


Only the religious look through God-tinted glasses on moral matters.

The idea that nature is designed is a god-tinted notion.

LordReed:


The idea that nature is designed is a god-tinted notion.

D;