₦airaland Forum

[quote author=28octo ]my friend its ok if you dont agree but then whats with the insult? Please I beg u in d name of God insult is no way to prove a point. I dont knw your area bro, possibly you live in choice area of our dear country and as such you listen to what you hear and read on papers. The reality on ground is far from what know.[/quote]Don't come online and be posting lies and unverified nonsense to ferment trouble. That is one of the reasons the world has problems.

[quote author=28octo ]my friend you are sounding very rude! Look i dont work by the books really. Just try to find out from any UBA staff. They are mostly paid via d bank. Am not discrediting anybdy here. I talk base on what i know. Its not my concern if any graduate is part of the scheme.

Amnesty as defined by the dictionary and practice the world over is just pardon. Its a Nigerian thing that money for arms come into play.

Am not against the amnesty scheme my concern is simple, they earn more than graduates on a general scale. Imagine their safety alawi is over 20k![/quote]Stop chatting shyt!

If you are being fooled or oppressed by someone that is telling you fibs about how much he gets, that does not mean you should come online to demonstrate your gullibility and idiocy.

Your hearsay is not a reliable source!

Fucktards like amosy007 can believe you if you claim they are paid N75m per month but you have to realise that online, you will meet Nigerians with better brains and education that will not tolerate beer parlour facts. You think everyone is a person like amosy007?

amosy007: May be he is one one those dumb ghanaians that stalk Nigerians everywhere

Soon he will be demanding to see the pictures of those militants that are collecting the money ....

You are a person!

You a product of a failed education system.

Bloody cretinous products that think hearsay is facts. Fooools like you should not have a right to vote.

Beetwo: Buh really, l tot dey earn btw 35 - 45k nau.

Don't mind him.

Because of lack of good sanitation, a lot of Nigerians shyt and carry the shyt from the ground to put in their brain as opinions. This leads to them basicsally manufacturing facts from their arse.

[quote author=28octo ]my friend am reside at d heart of Niger Delta. Its not a case of source.
To put it plain.... I know men wey dey collect the bal steadily. If dey my zone e go do u like film[/quote]So we are suppose to believe your lame claims when the reports in the media is different?

What makes your claim reliable?

Kay 17: I have made it clear to you that I don't know!! I'm not an Obama partisan! I felt his opinion on gay marriage was in accordance with the secular constitution!!

The topic was on the justification on gay marriages, not Obama innate secrets!!

No.

Surely you are sensible enough to be able to judge if Obama would be willing to stand up in public for polygamy?

Secondly, your argument on the topic is that societies/nations are wrong for using morals or cultural views of the moment to dictate human rights is dangerous. Now I asked you which countries you know that does not use moral or cultural views to dictate human rights or make laws. You are dodging that question miserably. Is it really that dangerous to use cultural views to set laws? Or is your argument just weak? Or you are trying to fool people with lame arguments like majority of the pro-gay argument does?

Kay 17: Human rights is universally recognized.

Gay activities is not human rights, and definitely not universally recognized.

[quote author=28octo ]Thats to show that you are not in the of your countries activities. Ijaw millitants in my area gets more than 150k. Do you have any idea how much it takes to send one millitant abroad? Go and sleep my friend[/quote]You are a person!

That is what we are suppose to believe?

Cretin!

[quote author=28octo ]please anybdy with idea how to join militants? Right now am not sure of my Degree anymore. Gunssss i think is a better options to get d attention of our government.

Better still lets form ours and shake the country
who is in?[/quote]Where the fck is your source for those figures?

Toaskarity: Which source! Are you a nigerian?

No! I am Turkish.

Do you have a source? Maybe a Nigerian one?

[quote author=28octo ][b][/b]Militants are paid as much as 150k to 300k monthly by Nigeria government. Flown to different parts of the world. Highly respected and feared by our political leaders. Simply beacus they pick up arms against the state. What about the very law abiding citizens? Left aloneeee!!!!! [/quote]State your source for those figures.

Kay 17: For the first question: Yes

If states decide to give morals a higher priority than personal freedoms and the Constitution, then it becomes tyrannical, and acts in violation and without authority against the Constitution!

Most human rights are not built on morals like women's rights

Amsorry!

I am struggling to see how this answers my question that you having been dodging for a while.

What you just did was ramble about a divergent opinion like I have cautioned you guys not to do:

Sagamite: When I give an argument, if anybody wants me to debate with them, I expect them to consume the logic.

CONSUME IT! Don't read it and vomit "I no go carry last" arguments. Think about the LOGIC! Consume it. That is, let it go through your head, don't sit your arse down and be thinking "what am I going to say next so it does not look like if I have lost". DON'T WASTE MY TIME!

Can you please structure your post to answer the question so I can give it an appropraite and insightful response.

Answer the questions, then feel free to append a ramble to the answers.

Kay 17: I think you would wait for a long time for me to give you an answer I'm not in a position to give.

So basically you don't have an opinion of how Obama would position himself on polygamy?

Secondly, you cannot tell me a SINGLE nation that does not use moral views to formulate laws?

So why do you keep on arguing then?

[quote author=Tayo-D]@Sagamite,

I absolutely agree with you. That is why I mentioned in starting this debate that we need to make a clear distinction between what is a right and what is a privilege. Getting a marriage license from the State is a privilege not a right! Since marriage must be defined and licenses issued when the conditions are met, "marriage" as defined by the State must always necessarily exclude some people and be prejudicial to others who do not meet that criteria. The State cannot give rights but it can give privileges. If everyone understands this point, then this argument about discrimination on gays will be mute.[/quote]That is the problem when issues are complex and laymen are trying to understand or contribute to it. They are easily misled.

The whole foundation of gay "rights" is based on misinformation in my opinion. How can someone say it is a "right" to marry whoever you want to marry and we can not apply or moral belief to people's freedom but yet sees no problem with restricting their freedom on the number they want to marry.

People would never understand because it is way too complex for their brains and they have been brainwashed they are wonderful frontline progressives when they give their lame arguments.

They whole argument for homosexuality is based on selective rules but yet they complain about selective rules, even though the latter rules make more sense than the former they are proposing.

I will wait for Kay 17 to answer my questions though.

Kay 17, I am still waiting . . . . . . . . .

Kay 17: I didn't tell you that I was obama's mind or party chief or a secretary!

You don't have to be in his party to tell me what you honestly think he would say.

Neither do you have to be in his party to tell me which society does not apply cultural views to its laws.

Now, have another go.

Ilaje44: I am not surprised at all. They drive insanely in that country. Absolutely no sense of sanity. Overtaking where one is not to. Overspeeding. Poorly maintained vehicles. Very very bad tyres, lack of formal driver's training. Poor legislation on the use of road, inconsistent and apartheid execution of the poor legislations we have. All these are reasons the death toll is likely to remain very high.

If I were in Govt, apart from improving on infrastructure, I would also improve legislation on road use, and very important, embark on a long term awareness campaign on TV, Radio, print media and the internet. An overwhelming proportion of people possessing a driver's license in Nigera can not drive. Driving is not about moving the vehicle, but also respecting you are not the only one using the road, that you have to respect road use laws etc.

If made the transport minister, I definitely would carry out policies that would visibly reduce road accidents and the unneccessary traffic gridlocks over there.

Well said!

Unfortunately, there are little incentives for these leaders to make road improvements when THEY can avoid it by flying, and even when they have to go on it, they can clear it with sirens.

How can you blame them when some of ther citizens think that is what they deserve and that is how things should work: https://www.nairaland.com/930817/nnpc-spends-1.35bn-annually-36/2#10773745

Kay 17, I am waiting for you to tell me o.

Kay 17: Yoir insistence that cultural views and trend of the moment should dictate human rights is dangerous. Women and blacks suffered under such systems.

In most these EU countries that do so, an exemption is often made to excuse religious rituals.

Tell me which society does not apply cultural views to its laws.

Holland did not give any exception to the Muslim community despite the fact that Halal is FUNDAMENTAL to their religious existence. Now Halal meat are not allowed to be made in Holland. In Holland and other Scandinavian coutnries, you are better off being gay than of a Muslim. They have relegated religion to abnormal. Now being a muslim in Holland is a natural but abnormal existence susceptible to societal morality rules in Holland. That is one of the so-called "progressive" countries coming to lecture us on gay acceptance. Jokers!

A man in the UK was recently sacked for sending an email to colleagues with a religious message. They found it abnormal.

Being a woman or black is natural and normal, that should give them fundamental human rights.

Tell me, would Obama approve of polygamy?

[quote author=Tayo-D]@Kay_17,

I am not quite sure about that. While the society in general does not really frown on it, I don't think you can readily marry more than one person by law. That notwithstanding, I don't see how it detracts from my points. Tell me, would polyandry also be allowed in Nigeria? Do you think it is an affront on the rights of women to be limited to only one man when men are allowed to marry more than one? Each society must define what it thinks is best for it. The US has accepted just the union of two consenting adult heterosexuals. Asking the US to expand that definition is to set chaos in motion.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but I assume the legal implications of a failed marriage vary from state to state and country to country.[/quote]GBAM!

That is why I said somethings that are not human rights are subject to societal morality rules. Some societies would accept it. Others will not.

For example, Holland banned the killing of animals the halal way. They chose that their society does not find the act moral.

How I wish interviewers can ask Obama why polygamy is illegal, if he would support a move to make it illegal and why he would not (if he is not in support of it). How I would just love that question. Lets see his logic on civil rights and freedom. I would want to see that humiliation.

Some Germans chose this. Obama and America would not see it as freedom and civil rights:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18021714

Kay 17: ^^
Iran is a better model??

What is "public nuisance"?

Iran also suffers from drug abuse, from your conclusion its a government policy!

And you point it?

You seem to just dig up any irrelevant thing and use it to argue lamely. What has what you said got to do with the point the guy made?

ramalot: Mr. brainless. It is obvious you are unintelligible by every standard.
As i have said before, i am not here to advocate the choices of anyone, nor am i attempting to alter your bigotry .
If anyone chooses to do what they do, and this action IN NO WAY harms any party involved directly or indirectly. Then good for them.
We all think and live differently as evidenced by such arguments. SO again, if you absolutely cannot live with that -KILL YOURSELF SIR!

You are a cretin!

I asked you was zero taught to you as part of the alphabets in your feyingbole school?

Cretin!

dayokanu: Mr Sagamuu.

What is normal and natural still remains a function of the society you live in

Giving birth to twins was considered an abnormal and unnatural occurence not too long ago.

marrying your family memeber is considered normal in some cultures and family. Even in the bible people married their own close family.

Stewpidity is not justification for defining natural.

If anyone said giving birth to twins is unnatural, then the person is stewpid.

That said, I don't think there was a time anyone said twins were unnatural. They just saw it as a bad omen.

I don't know why you are telling me about in[i]c[/i]est.


To ALL,

It seems some of you are just looking at any thing to scrape at to keep arguing.

When I give an argument, if anybody wants me to debate with them, I expect them to consume the logic.

CONSUME IT! Don't read it and vomit "I no go carry last" arguments. Think about the LOGIC! Consume it. That is, let it go through your head, don't sit your arse down and be thinking "what am I going to say next so it does not look like if I have lost". DON'T WASTE MY TIME!

If you can find faults in my arguments/points, highlight the faults and explain where I am wrong by clearly pointing out where the logical rules is broken.

If you can't. ACCEPT IT and don't come up with lame rigmaroles to waste my time!

I am assuming people understand the meaning of natural (moreso because I have already explained it severally). Please, all of you stop wasting my time and coming up with ridiculous conception of "natural". People igonrant of what is natural does not stop what is natural being natural, and what is not being unnatural.

This is what I said.

Sagamite: If something is natural and normal, you can't ban it and it shouldn't face morality rules. That is fundamental human rights.

If something is natural but abnormal, it is open to societal morality rules. Even though it is arguably human rights but might not be.

If something is unnatural but normal, it is open to societal morality rules. It is not human rights.

If something is unnatural and abnormal, it potentially should open the door to a psychiatrist's office. It is not human rights.

Morality rules are useful tools societies employ to make their society sane.

It is not rocket science, just simply making sense.

ramalot: First off, that is not how you spell 'm0r0n' M0R0N!

Not once in all you rabid comments on this thread, have you made an argument that is not wholly centered on short-sightedness.
'normal' is a very relative term based on society etc.
For instance, you could sit in your little church premises and drink bottles of beer during events and occasions, and it is perfectly 'normal'.
On the other hand, attempting the exact same thing in the premise of a mosque in Kano or Saudi could leave your head hanging on a stick.

These differences in perception and actions are what make people 'different.' To him, you are a despicable waste of life. Reason? -you drink alcohol and eat pork.

If you cannot realize AND ACCEPT that the world is bigger than your individual definition and way of things, then you might as well kill yourself coz YOU CANNOT MAKE THE ENTIRE WORLD BELIEVE ALL THE SAME SH!T YOU BELIEVE, AND LIVE THE SAME WAY YOU LIVE. NOT GONNA HAPPEN!

To this end, you either live and let live, or as i earlier suggested- KILL YOURSELF!

You are a person!

And since when did zero become part of the alphabets? Which school failed you, cretin?

You are a cretin!

So natural is also a relative term based on society?

Foool! You think when I tell you not to give me grasping at straws arguments, that was an insult?

It is an advice because I will use it to slaughter you!

Kay 17: Transgender is an expression of identity, you might consider it unnatural, but a person has such freedom.

Like medical care and plastic surgery, both aren't natural, right?

And your point is?

manny4life: Just when I thought the master person wouldn't reply "guilty conscience" couldn't help but prevail that he had to reply - just like I'd though he would. Master person


@Tayo-D, I don't know where you got the idea that rights are God given, and therefore the govt instituted rights are not but a privilege. I really don't know how you summed up your opinion. The U.S. Constitution is VERY CLEAR and made no mistake. Rights are not conferred upon, they are earned when has been achieved. Just like how most first son in major tribes have authority in the family in the absence of the father, OR access to family wealth or estate, the son does not attend any ceremony for the right to be conferred upon him, but, being the "FIRST SON" had earned him that right to authority. Again, just like the voting, every U.S. citizen has a right to vote. If you're not U.S. citizen, you cannot vote.

Same rule applies, every resident or U.S. citizen has a right to marry, the contention is that the DOMA act defines marriage between a man and woman, and the fed ONLY recognizes the rights under that act to heterosexual couples. When folks are about to become married, they go to clerks office and obtain a marriage license and go to court to make it legal.

They have earned that right to file taxes (lower taxes liability) together as a couples, hold estate together, have retirement and saving plans together, immigration (man/woman can file for their spouse), Family leave, et al. This is a right "GUARANTEED" under the Constitution NOT a privilege which ISN'T guaranteed. Their rights cannot be removed/revoked/refused else they will challenge it, but if it was a privilege, marriage or not, then it means it can be revoked at ANY time and can neither be challenged.

Shut up, person!

Or you want me to give you another assignment to make you look like an ediot?

Oya give examples to these, foool:

Sagamite: If something is natural and normal, you can't ban it and it shouldn't face morality rules. That is fundamental human rights.

If something is natural but abnormal, it is open to societal morality rules. Even though it is arguably human rights but might not be.

If something is unnatural but normal, it is open to societal morality rules. It is not human rights.

If something is unnatural and abnormal, it potentially should open the door to a psychiatrist's office. It is not human rights.

Kay 17: Your disagreement with gay rights rests on cultural perception. You are making use of languages such as "normal" "natural" "acceptable". Taboos is the exclusive language of culture and its overtly subjective. Deviant behaviour ranges from pedophilI.a to homosexuality, however in other cultures, pedophili.a, incest are SEEN as normal and acceptable, deviant behaviour goes from alcohol intake and sale, women performing masculine gender roles, tattoos, abortion, pacifism.

At the end of the day, you place culture/morality in its chameleon nature over the constitution and the modern idea of freedom.

Natural is an exclusive language of biology.

Normal is a language of ambiguity that can range from culture to biology.

I am sure there are several people/countries that regard polygamy, in[i]c[/i]est or adolescent-relationships as outside the "sophisticated", "cool", "funky" constitution and the modern idea of freedom.

Lesson: It is normal and healthy to use morality to devise laws. AND every country does it. So cut the BS of our ideology is more "sophisticated" and "modern" and "urban" and "progressive".

It is surprising how most of you come up with some pompous ideological rules to defend homosexuality, only to find out your own ideology breaks those rules.

Demdem: The RETARDEEN simply has nothing to show for his stay as presido since 2010. its obvious his asss-lickers also agree because they simply hasnt listed anything yet.

The person prefers to run!

Beaf: ...Another one taking his turn to up the idiocy record! Na wa!
Why do you all sound so bitter and hate filled like a pack of perennial losers?

You are a person!

So now you run after your houseboy shouts that Jonathan is the greatest and will be the best president we ever had? Despite the fact we the intellectuals were telling you he is dumb!

Chimp licking the arse of a Silverback Gorilla.

If something is natural and normal, you can't ban it and it shouldn't face morality rules. That is fundamental human rights.

If something is natural but abnormal, it is open to societal morality rules. Even though it is arguably human rights but might not be.

If something is unnatural but normal, it is open to societal morality rules. It is not human rights.

If something is unnatural and abnormal, it potentially should open the door to a psychiatrist's office. It is not human rights.

Morality rules are useful tools societies employ to make their society sane.

It is not rocket science, just simply making sense.

ramalot: What your myopia has once again failed to see and realize is that the red word above is the key element in both statements above.
'Assume' in the context of my statement represents a false state of mind and not an actual position.
For instance- Mr. A assumes he is the most handsome man in the world. Mr. B assumes he is superior to Mr. A.
In this case, your mind tells you are somehow better than a gay person.

You are a mooron!

How does that make the fact they are not of the same genre different?

Stop giving me grasping at straws argument. Shut up and take a correction.

manny4life: You guys are still arguing with master of all fucktards?

You guys have so much time on your hands to argue with him, anyway like those saying that this is re-election strategy, and so what? What if it is? He still has 10x better chance than Romney.

The public split on opinion will ALWAYS be there, Gay mariage is one of the least bottom things on the mind of the average American during election. YES, most Black Americans in the community will be angry, but they have better thing to be worried about such as Healthcare, Social Welfare, Jobs, Taxes, etc. This particular issues affect them directly NOT gay marriage, and that's how they will vote. Gay marriage doesn't affect them, and for you information, I don't see how many democrats will raise hell about it when indeed it was they who has been pushing for repeal of DOMA and repealed "Don't ask, don't tell".

There's a clear difference between "Marriage" and "Civil Union", at least under DOMA. A marriage provides federal benefits and protections while the other doesn't. Benefits come in different forms and fashion. Here's a random excerpt'

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Though most states that recognize civil partnership but not marriage do offer some of these benefits, however, because the FG doesn't recognize it, it's a serious limitation.

Shut up person!

dayokanu: He was the only one who was open about his orientation and he got beaten for it.

So has the mantra and your repeated question that who has been attacked for being GAYY in Nigeria been answered?

Thank you.

You proved my point. If you keep it private, it would be rare for anyone to disturb you in Nigeria.

So let them keep it private, we are not interested in Gay Pride day. That does not give anyone the right to attack him though, but that was the reason he was unusually attacked.

ramalot: To be quite frank, it doesn't. In all the cases above, excluding necrophilia, if both adult parties choose to engage in such, then good for them. A corpse cannot consent, so that is a different issue.

So why is Obama not advocating polygamy. His conscience does not prick him about rights there?

ramalot: On the contrary sir, U are the joker here.
The connection is simple: A group of individuals being subjugated for being different, by individuals who assume a state of superiority.
There was a time when being a "human being" meant you were a 'Heterosexual Caucasian male'. Any and everyone not falling tightly into this description was considered sub-human.
If not for the civil rights movements around the world, do you imagine any of that would have changed (or at least improved) today?

Let me use your own definitions to correct you:

Blacks, Women, Palestines, Dalits, Ibos, Hausas, Yorubas, Gypsies etc: A group of individuals being subjugated for being different, by individuals who assume a state of superiority.

Homosexuals, Beastials, Necrophilics, Paedophiles, Incestors etc: A group of individuals being subjugated for being deviant, by individuals who assume a state of morality.

Stop comparing homosexuality to blacks for cheap piggy-back credibility. They are not in the same category and are not related.

ramalot: There is nothing new about this development. Obama has always supported equal rights for LGBT individuals.

That said, there are way too many m0rons on Nairaland. How is this done to help his re-election chances? are u kidding me?
This is a very BOLD move on his part coz it has more potential to ruin his chances of re-election.
The moral here is being true to your stance, and he is.
All i see here are a bunch of ignorant Bigots who can't see beyond themselves.
Gay rights are a civil rights issue, and some day in the future, some of you might get it. Only difference is, you will be equivalent to an ex KKK member at the time.

If two individuals consent to be in a relationship, how does it affect you or your marriage?

Personally, i do not advocate homosexuality, and won't be found at a gay pride rally. Then again, you will not find me at an anti-gay rally up in arms and picket signs.
In life you have to live and let live.

You are a cretin!

So how does incest, necrophilia, nudism or polygamy disturb affect you and your marriage?

dayokanu: While in OAU. A gayy student Dapo Adaralegbe was beaten regularly and he had to leave school

If you are on facebook you can check him/her now Name is Stephanie Adaralegbe

Then people should be arrested for assault! There are laws in place to protect against such already.

I am sure Stepany Adaralegbe was not the only gay person in the school. Not even comprising 10% of the gays in the school. So there must have been something that made him susceptible to attacks.

Kay 17: BUT you are not direct! What are ur points??

My point is never compare homosexuality to racism, sexism etc as a cheap piggy-back for credibility. They are not in the same category in essence.

I have told you that before.