₦airaland Forum

sultanemerald: I believe he lifts this gibberish off couple of places. Put them together without full comprehension and the direction of the argument, paste here and tell us he is intelligent. It is really sad.

I suspect the same.

He is completely intellectually deficient.

pazienza: Like i said, those involved in incest have not started campaigning for recognition, when they start, the world world as always would listen to their case, until then, i would be glad if you stop creating a problem that doesn't exist. Until then, the issue on hand is homosexualism lets stay on topic.

Can you tell me the negative effects of homosexualism on the economy of a country or on the well being of a heterosexual.

So people need to campaign before you do the right thing and enforce their rights?

In the meantime, punish them?

You think you are making sense?

ccollins:

Geez,what is wrong with this dude? Be respectful in conversation with noble intellects.. Or are you a learner? The nigerian legislators make laws partly on moral grounds but is it not common logic that if your leaders who make the so-called moral laws cannot keep them being they an eponym to those laws,so then what do they expect the masses to do kwa?? Or na wetin dey paper for constitutional frame work every person will follow when the leaders are making hullabo of those moral laws and pretending... Mind you that nigerian's are not gullible people like before after all the so-called moral laws are close to nonexistent with level of crimes perpetrated in nigeria

You are a person then.

There is nothing in laws or constitutions that says legislators have to be "eponipati" or whatever of laws formulated. Laws formulated are based purely on the desires of the people and what they feel would make them progress; and the laws are meant to apply equally to everyone.

If lawmakers break laws, then enforce the law on them.

Saying laws should not be created because you think legislators cannot be eponikita of it is moronic.

Never bring such moronic arguments my way again.

Some of you ediots think when you use big words it makes you intelligent.

pazienza: So are you willing to admit that your dislike for homosexualism is built around digust, if we agree on this rather than beating around around the bush like you are doing, maybe we can now decide if disgust is enough reason to impose your will on other people's life.

Beating around the bush?

Please show me where or explain to me how I beat around the bush.

pazienza: Democracy is not just about the imposition of the will of the majority on the minority, it's also about the protection of the minority from the majority. If democracy was all about the will of the majority, then we won't have the liberation of the blacks in USA, as they were but a minority those days, and majority whites wanted the status quo then to stand, it was their struggle that attracted white sympathizers to them and helped turn the tide.

Well, yeah, democracy is not about the imposition of the will of the majority on the minority.

More definitively, it is not about the imposition of the will of the minority on the majority.

If there is an issue the minority want the majority to specially consider, then they have to influence the majority.

If there is an issue the majority feels strongly against, then surely one can only go with the majority, not force the view of the minority on them and say you are practicing democracy.

Secondly, never compare blacks to homosexuals. There is no basis of comparison.

Thirdly, blacks were liberated because they influenced the majority and the majority fought a war for them. So I don't see how you applied that narrative to your "democracy is not about the imposition of the will of the majority on the minority".

ccollins:

Geez,what is wrong with this dude? Be respectful in conversation with noble intellects.. Or are you a learner? The nigerian legislators make laws partly on moral grounds but is it not common logic that if your leaders who make the so-called moral laws cannot them being they an eponym to those laws,so then what so they expect masses to do kwa?? Or na wetin dey paper for constitutional frame work every person will follow when the leaders are making hullabo of those moral laws and pretending... Mind you that nigerian's are not gullible people like before after all the so-called moral laws are close to nonexistent with level of crimes perpetrated in nigeria

Your grammar is bad.

Rewrite. I don't understand your points.

pazienza: Incest can result in offspring with genetic defects, This is because it can lead to higher phenotypic expression of recessive genes within a population. some of the effects of this on the population includes:

Reduced fertility,lower birth rate,increased genetic disorders,higher infant mortality, smaller adult size,loss of immune system,etc.

Government have the justification cause what those that engage in incest does not just affect on them, it affects their innocent offspring and then the entire population. We can't say the same of Homosexualism.

Moreover, i don't even know why homophobes like roping incest into their silly argument,cos all over history we know that injustice of a majority over a minority were overcame because the minority took the bull by the horn and demanded for equality, not because the majority willingly gave them such. Those involved in incest are not campaigning for equality, when they start, the world will listen to their case, until then, stop creating a non existing problem.

AHHHH!

Wah sheyree!

O gbe grammar de! (E don bring grammar)

O fun mi ni phenotypic ati genetics! (He gave me phenotypic and genetics)

So according to your logic, then governments should also ban people with hereditary diseases from procreating or sexual intercourse then?

Init?

leon12: Studies showed that if your Identical Twins is Gay you have 99% chanceof being gay. Could it be that both of em are possessed by Evil spirit right from birth to all identical Gay twins in the World??

I pray for your sake that this is just a provocative question, not an hypothetical proposal?

chineloSA: That's where you are completely wrong. Gays want to be given an opportunity to be. They want to be in a society where they dont get judge because of the intimate preference

They didn't say they want everyone to believe in gayism

They want to be afforded all RIGHTSt afforded to hererosexual, leper, mentally disturbed. They want to ''BE".

WHICH IS A RIGHT TO BE MARRIED AND THEIR RIGHT BE CONSTITUTIONALLY AND SOCIALLY RECOGNISED

PLEASE LET THEM BE

Their right to be homosexuals is constitutionally recognised.

Their right to act on their homosexual desires is not and will not be constitutionally recognised.

The perversion is legislated against.

Once they don't publicly act on the desires, I am sure they can live a life that would entail minimal judging.

ccollins: I am not easily intimidated by political scientists who self-claim to know it all.. I have to be outspoken and assertive in facts which I have to convince a person who is a deluded ignoramus and myopic... Also, bet some peeps have to go back to school and read the nigerian legal system by a.o sanni... Its annoying to bring in morality when we know how corrupt and wayward our legistlators are in law making even though they pretend in open and in writing not to be such....

You are a person!

So laws should not be made based on morality because you suspect some legislators may be shady?

Why don't we even close down democracy because we are susceptible to electing shady legislators.

What a cretin!

ccollins: Do not disgracefully misunderstand my post,"I said not all laws but then some do not have morality" hope you got that into your hard brain

Are you really this thick?

Who said all laws are based on morality for it to warrant you making the statement?

ccollins: Seems u did not see my previous post vividly, u choose to ignore it.. Go through it again,, I still rest my case on the wide believe that laws not entirely all do not depend on morality,,, I could give a million rationale if you want

If you show me where I stated all laws are based on morality, I would go back and read your previous post.

Otherwise, I would strongly advise you to stop drinking locally-made burukutu early in the morning.

ccollins: Imao, you forgot we have minority leaders in the house of assembly who can influence certain decisions

Honestly, are you really this thick?

ccollins: Oga, morality is Overrated in various country laws... Stop saying trash.. That is my main point

Over-rated?

Maybe.

If you can find enough people like you to create a nihilist nation, feel free.

The fact there that I am clonking into your head is that, the argument homosexuality cannot be banned based on morality, laws are not created based on morality or morality is not a justification for creating laws is null and void.

ccollins: To some folks here with down syndrome who only resort to tantrums to feel they have won a healty debate beyond them.. Let me clarify some things,, and why the law should never be against same -sex marriage I.e the influence of moral views is always
present in human behaviour and activity. More
generally speaking: subjectivity is always 'present'.
The point is that it cannot be showed and that it
cannot be used to motivate or justify a decision or an
act that is regulated by law. The training of a judge is
not only intellectual but also emotional and political:
regardless of her beliefs, she must believe that the
only source of authority is the Law. This principle of
legality may contradict somehow the MORAL beliefs
of certain people, but that's another issue.
The cases of deviation from the principle of legality
are probably a low percentage: In many cases, these
deviations do not come from morality interference
nor even from subjectivity. In most cases, the legal
system can expurgate them.

More tosh by you.

When something is subjective, how do you determine its application in a society?

By taking the view of a minority and imposing it over the majority's desire?

Stop chatting rubbish!

Every nation formulates laws based on morality.

[quote author=Mynd_44]I asked two questions


you replied with this



and you say I am running away from your questions?
**confused**

And on the celibacy issue, what do I care if they are celibate? The pope is celibate and I don't give any less of an eff. The same way I don't care if someone is gay or lesbian.

It does not concern me.[/quote]So why did you ask me the stewpid question:

"If we can say people can decide to be celibate why can't they decide to be homosexual?"

You just wanted to waste my time with senseless questions?

ccollins: What is the scathing remarks all about , I am not a homosexual but a firm believer in human rights.. We are in the 21st century for crying out loud

HAAAYYYYYYYY!

Awon 21st Centurists!!!

Take all bullshyt because "We are in the 21st century" argumentators.

ccollins: Morality can mean diabolic things,, u really have a nonsense one dimension of morality to talk this rubbish... Historical researches shows that there is an element of morality in every nations law but I still maintain my stance that some certain nations do not have morality due to the way their law was crafted.. Okay,sodom and gommorrah, other countries like u.s.s.r during their dictatorship era... Morality is subjective, I.e a nation may accept stealing into their law... Does that still make their laws moral? Let me be more detailed here - There is a common logical fallacy that the crime
statistics reflect in some way the morality of the
society. STOP HERE AND THINK TWICE! The crime
statistics reflect first to which extent the human
behaviour may be considered to be criminal, i.e.
these figures mirror the criminalization of certain
activities. We can legalize prostitution or the retail
sales of alcohol in Sweden and then statistics of
crime will look different, not necessarily better. We
can change the definition of the crimes; a broader
definition will increase the statistics at least in the
first period after the amendment. A narrower
definition and a harder burden of proof for the
prosecution will decrease the statistics, but attention
not the criminality. The most fallacious part of the
statement is to pass by the fact that an increase in
the statistics can often reflect a more effective
enforcement. The police and the other authorities
have invested lots of public money in a betterment of
the enforcement. This has nothing to do with the
morality of the people living in that jurisdiction.
Think about the taxation for instance! One can define
taxation as a very moral activity, it is after all about
sharing and giving to the people in need, but also as
an immoral activity because a person is dispossessed
by his/he property, property which has been obtained
completely in a legal manner. Of course that some
crimes appear to be absolutely horrifying and
undoubtedly immoral, but you as an outsider, as a
second hand listener, you will never know the whole
story. Therefore the biblical story is still wise: Don't
throw any stones on nobody! You might be less
innocent than that person.
Another short reflection about the truth and the
search for truth and the idea that the ultimate truth
is God! To me this statement is related with the first
the biblical advice 'Don't throw stones!'. The socially
constructed truth is always relative and it serves
some common purposes. Panem et circenses, bread
and circus/games, this is what it is served. Now-a-
days the circus is more Hollywood constructed than
live. The main idea is that you do not witness the
truth, we are only told the 'truth' and if the truths
being told fit with your frame of values, they are
going to be accepted as reality. If they come in
conflict with this frame of values, you will reject them
and start to search about the 'real' truth and so on. It
sounds strange but in order to provide justice and be
impartial, you have to forget about your own cultural
bias or moral bias and judge as to the law, not as to
the morality.

You are reetarded!

Tell me since when did fairytale places become countries?

Tell me why you believe the USSR did not use morality in forming laws.

I have not read the rest of your junk as you clearly started of with pure junk.

[quote author=Mynd_44]Considering that I asked a question first, you owe me an answer.[/quote]You did not see the answer to your question?

And you are running from my questions?

[quote author=Mynd_44]What society? Who forms this "society" you are talking of? Did you take a vote of everyone in the "society" to decide what is good?

When did the society start deciding people's private and personal affairs?

So if the "society" decide to go back to treating blacks as inferior they will be right right?[/quote]I asked you a question:

When people decide to be celibate, what do you plan to do to stop them?

aManFromMars: Rape them



*sorry, just had to do that. make i read the thread.

I too thought for a second that that may be an argument.

iamdsam: I support same sex marriage. It's your human right to be gay or not or even celibacy. The only thing I don't support for gays is the adoption of children. They shouldn't take what they can't produce. I support gay right. Stand up for gay rights. I think I gonna start a thread on this

You support homosexual marriage and rights but don't support adoption of kids?

Confused ediot!

How are you going to stop adoption of kids when you state such support?

On what grounds would you be able to argue non-adoption of kids if you state homosexuality is perfectly alright?

ccollins: Are u just slow to uderstand things or what?? Let me explain- The difference between law and morality is seen in
punishment. When a law is broken, it is punishable
by the government but bad morals are not
punishable, at least not by the country's
government. The law is a system of rules enforced by
a set of institutions for civil, political and economic
obedience in a society, while morality refers to a code
of conduct in matters of right and wrong.

No, I am just seeing a person that is chatting moronic rubbish.

Now foool, listen carefully.

Laws are usually formed based on 2 main basis:

- Harm caused.
- Morality.

When a law is made based on this, a punishment is attached to not adhering to the law.

I asked you a simple question which it appears you were too daft to comprehend and answer:

Tell me one nation now or IN HISTORY that has never used morality as a basis for creating laws.

If you can't, then stop chatting shyt!

[quote author=Mynd_44]And who says their sexuality is not their right? If we can say people can decide to be celibate why can't they decide to be homosexual?[/quote]Who says?

The Society.

When people decide to be celibate, what do you plan to do to stop them?

ccollins: My friend ,homosexuality and kleptomania are not the same... Or I shuld I get a wikipedia version of their meanings. Don't tie the knots or twist homosexuality into something abhorrent, Get your facts straight here before u also cunningly brainwash people from whatever liberty they have as to their private life's... Let me bring to your awareness that homosexuality is never supposed to be a criminal offence because it does not qualify under sine qua non justification of creating a law against it.. For fook's sake ,morality is not a characteristic of the law.. If not, decadence and non-peity attitude like lying, fornication would have been criminalised.

Ehen?

So it does not qualify under sine qua non justification of creating a law?

Tootor? (Na true?)

Morality is not a characteristic of the law?

Really?

So it is under shingosho poroukoto paskoski justification of creating a law that polygamy is banned?

Tell me one nation now or IN HISTORY that has never used morality as a basis for creating laws.

[quote author=Mynd_44]Preventing and disgusting to you bro. A lot of people find atheism and worshipping idols preventing and disgusting but you can't call for it being made illegal cos people have the right to live as they want.[/quote]Religious right is seen as a fundamental human right.

If you can find enough people disgusted by Atheism and Idol worshipping to the point of getting it banned, then feel free.

So you can call for it being illegal if you decide it is no more a fundamental human right.