₦airaland Forum

pazienza: Often than not,what is natural is never socially acceptable. For example,it is natural for any person to want to pluck a ripe mango fruit he saw on his way that is not in his land, if he were to act on his natural instinct,he should be plucking that mango fruit, but his sense of socially acceptable norms would stand between him and his natural instinct.

So,we can see that morals and norms were put in place,as a way to check mate man's natural instincts,for what the society believes will be beneficial for all.

Marriage as an institution was put up to by the society to protect the woman.

sorry but none of what you just described is natural. It is natural for any sentient being to protect what he perceives as his property, whether it be its offspring,shelter,sexual partner or even his Mango. Not plucking a mango that does not belong to you is not decision that arose from dissenting from your natural instincts rather it comes from being aware that you can be in serious trouble for doing that so i would rather describe that as a natural instinct in man to protect itself from harm. Nobody pushes man to reject its natural instincts in this situation.
You should desist from adopting the neo liberal perversionist definitions of nature as they only promote such notions to further make their crazy habits like homosexualism acceptable.
Marriage as an institution is a necessity to protect mankind, it has never been to protect the woman and it would never be.
Anthropological evidence shows that there are coupling(marriage) in diverse races and tribes even before the knew about each other. You can not say that hausas taught the zulu to marry or that our colonial masters taught nigerians to marry, you can't even say that the austrialian aborigines do not marry before their first contact with the outside world. Even animals form pairs and procreate. From that you can see that marriage between the opposite sex is purely natural phenomenon. You can say human(of opposite sex) started pairing up starting from XXXX BC or that animals started paring up from some dated period. So marriage started when humans started, in other words marriage as a natural attribute of many sentient beings humans being among them.

[size=16pt]Nigeria: Candidate for Political Destabilization and “Regime Change”? - [/size]
By Adeyinka Makinde


It is worth reminding, if such reminder is at all necessary, how even in the contemporary circumstances of an omnipresent international security system represented by the United Nations which promotes the ideals of mutual security and co-existence, the conduct of the relations of nations continues to assuredly reflect the elementally brutal and atavistic nature of man.

For it is the case that among the panoply of strategies employed in the exercise of statecraft, the stealthily managed policy of fracturing or otherwise, engineering the ‘rolling back’ of certain countries in order to obtain geo-strategic advantage remains a vital and ongoing cog in the wheel of the foreign policy of those nations possessing the necessary guile, power and resources.

Destabilisation has a long and a markedly bloody history. It may be facilitated by a catalogue of diplomatic intrigues, instigating covert operations or by stimulating proxy wars which may be fought internally or against external foes. But the end game is to achieve a re-alignment in loyalty through regime change or the dismemberment of the subject nation and the consequent re-drawing of the map.

The rationale for one nation seeking to destabilise another is clear: to acquire economic benefit or to achieve security or both. The mechanics of achieving these goals are multifaceted and are often complicated.

Nonetheless, those countries which may be more susceptible to the pressures applied with the intention to destabilise tend to be those for whom nationhood has not been achieved through a lengthy evolutionary process. The aggressor nation will apply pressure where for instance there are weak bonds of national solidarity; manifested usually in tribal, ethnic or religious rivalries through which festering grievances may be exploited.

Those fractious countries which are held together by authoritarian or totalitarian regimes under the auspices of a ‘strongman’ or a ‘charismatic leader’ but which are ultimately devoid of strongly developed institutions and a substantive political culture are particularly susceptible to manoeuvres aimed at weakening the powerbase of a successor ruler. Such was arguably the case in Yugoslavia in the aftermath of the death of Josip Broz Tito.

Yet, there is evidence that the break up and subsequent dismemberment of Yugoslavia was not an inevitability and was only achieved through the meddlesome efforts of the Western world in stimulating internecine friction because it did not wish to have a large and potentially powerful nation-state straddling the West and East of the post-Cold War European continent.

The words uttered in the public arena by certain nations actively engaged in the pursuit of the destabilisation of others may be ‘correct’ and couched in the subtle niceties of diplomatic speak, but camouflage the underlying basis of their foreign policies.

The United States, for one, has had an unceasing policy in terms of destabilising nations in order to effect changes in government to suit its geo-strategic interests. The State of Israel also has had a longstanding agenda geared towards destabilising its neighbours.

The former, at one time while vying with the Soviet Union for global influence, is now the sole world superpower which is ever watchful; even fearful of China’s growing economic and military power and the competition it offers in terms of securing favourable terms of access to raw materials, while the latter, the Zionist state, seeks to consolidate its survival; having entrenched itself among hostile Arab states which surround its borders.

The United States has under the auspices of NATO in the era of the so-called War on Terror and Arab Spring, succeeded in overthrowing the governments of two key countries which it had for long targeted for destabilisation: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Muamar Gaddafi’s Libya. It is currently seeking to do the same to Syria, which is in the midst of a civil war, and Iran, which is the subject of vigorously applied sanctions.

The break up Iraq and Syria were long-established Israeli policy goals articulated respectively in the Yinon Plan for the 1980s, and the ‘Securing the Realm’ document produced in the 1990s. They both tally with the New Revisionist-stance of Ze’ev Jabotinsky, which argued that the surrounding Arab states needed to be weakened and effectively neutralised in order to assure the survival of a nascent Zionist state.

A plan along these lines which pinpointed the Christian-Muslim divide in the Lebanon as a means through which Israel could acquire regional influence by dismantling that nation, and even achieve some measure of territorial expansion, was devised in the 1950s by David Ben Gurion and applied with devastatingly tragic results in subsequent decades.

The United States, and, to a lesser extent, Israel, have geo-strategic interests which extend to the African continent. The Israeli outlook as identified in the aforementioned Yinon Plan is said to be that of encouraging the severing of Black Africa from the Arab world, a view that was given credence by the support given by Israel to the South Sudanese Liberation Army in its quest to be free of the Arab north.

The United States itself was not an uninterested party in the eventual severance of the south from north Sudan, not only because of the latter being continually identified as one of a core of enemy nations in successive influential policy documents such as that by the Project for the New American Century, but also due to the favourable oil trading agreements it had reached with China.

Africa the continent has not escaped the attentions of international powers competing for access to its riches in raw materials. This in the final analysis is the crux of the matter, whether the continent is serving as the battleground between the forces of religion or ideology.

Centuries ago, beginning with the Portuguese, when the first European maritime powers were circumnavigating the globe, the Pope issued an instruction that the southward advance of Islam from the northern part of the continent be checked by Christendom.

But the conversion of what were viewed as ‘heathen souls’ to the Christian faith also served as a means of extending economic rights and entitlements among the city-states and empires the Europeans encountered first on the coastal areas and then in the interior.

Today, the nations of African continent just as the Arab lands, by virtue of their multi-ethnic composition within artificially created borders, remain vulnerable to efforts geared toward national destabilisation.

As a prelude to the age of imperialism, Africa was carved up between the European powers of the day with little regard to indigenously evolved borders much in the manner that the British and the French helped themselves to the Arab lands forfeited by the defeated Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War.

With the emerging China ravenous for raw materials and making inroads into African markets, the consequent nervousness felt by the older colonial powers of France and Britain as well as the United States of America portends ominously to a second ‘Scramble for Africa’.

From the mineral-rich Maghreb region of West Africa to the abundant resources in the Great Lakes area of East Africa; and from the Congo area to the oil rich Niger Delta, Africa remains the most endowed continent so far as raw materials are concerned.

The taking down of the Gaddafi regime to some extent and the division of Sudan into two to a greater degree may be symptoms of such a scramble. The ruses which would necessitate intervention will likely change depending on the targeted region or country.

For instance, the hype surrounding the Ugandan political renegade and bandit, Joseph Kony in 2012, was seen in certain quarters as a contrived news item designed to pave the way for the militarisation of the Great Lakes area by the United States.

The War on Terror, which history will surely need to re-reassess in terms of its genuineness as a phenomenon, remains the most likely avenue for the external application of the techniques of destabilisation and foreign intervention.

The complexities associated with determining historical and contemporary issues of cause and effect notwithstanding, the recent French intervention in Mali, a nation which is part of the Maghreb, is significant not only for the averred aim of pushing back al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, but also because it enables the French to station troops in a resource rich area.

Where do the circumstances of today leave Nigeria; Africa’s most populous nation? The answer must surely be one which unambiguously places it in a category of clear and present danger of being subjected to manipulations geared towards weakening the authority of its government and its eventual dissolution as a nation.

Back in 2006, the United States National Intelligence Council (NIC) which distils the medium to long term strategic thinking of the American Intelligence Community for the benefit of the policymakers of that nation predicted that Nigeria would disintegrate by 2015.

This was and still is taken by many Nigerians to be the officially sanctioned view of the government of the United States. Although not strictly true, the role of America and the application of the devices of its intelligence services and military command structure will likely have some bearing on the nation’s future.

Nigeria, as is the case with most African countries, is a conglomerate nation; an artificial construction put together by imperial draughtsmen. With an estimate of well over 200 different ethnicities and a roughly even division between Christian and Moslems, it has proved to be a combustible arrangement of convenience designed under the aegis of the British Empire.

It has, in the five decades of its existence as an independent entity endured a series of crises. Most notably the civil war fought between the federation and the secessionist Republic of Biafra between 1967 and 1970.

Communal violence which for the most part had previously taken the form of temporary outbursts of sectarian rioting has recently transmogrified into a sustained and sophisticated campaign of terror waged by an Islamist sect with the official title of “Jama’atu ahlis sunna lidda’awarti wal-jihad” translated as meaning, “People committed to the propagation of the prophet’s teachings and jihad.”

The group is better known by the name ‘Boko Haram’ or ‘No to Western education.’

While the oil rich but economically neglected Niger Delta area was plagued for years by militant groups committing acts of terror, kidnapping and sabotage as a demand for a greater slice of the national cake; the crimes of Boko Haram surpass this by great measure. Their avowed aim is to drive Christians out of the mainly Muslim north and declare a modern Islamic caliphate modelled on the pre-colonial one of Sokoto created by the scholar and revolutionary, Usman dan Fodio.

It could be argued thus that the logical conclusion given Nigeria’s historically shaky foundations, propensity for internal strife and institutionalised corruption would be that it is ripe for disintegration due to its inherited mass of contradictions and such eventuality would not require the covert manipulation by external powers.

It could further be argued that any insinuations that the United States could aid in the destabilising and destroying of Nigeria as a corporate entity is tantamount to a libel.

A closer reading of the historical attitude of the United States to Nigeria, as well as the statement of intent posed to the future of Nigeria and Africa as a whole by the establishment of the US created African High Command or AFRICOM is essential in understanding an alternate, more cynical reading of the realities of the situation.

[size=14pt]Nigeria is considered by American intelligence reports and the decided opinion of its policymakers to be of great strategic interest. It is after all the fourth major supplier of oil to the United States after Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico. Also, companies such as Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Shell and Total envisage increasing their output there in the next few years by up to fifty per cent.

But although Nigeria has developed into an ally of sorts with military joint exercises and training given to its Special Forces, the United States has viewed Nigerian leadership within Africa and the West African sub-region as a threat.

An analysis of the imperial mentality which has governed American foreign policy since its ascension to world power status is instructive. Regional powers who act independently are stamped upon and put in line. The United States hegemon needs a minor power that it can control and influence and not one which it deals with on equal terms or which effectively is a rival.

And despite a national tendency towards dysfunctionality and deprecations couched in terms of its being ‘big for nothing’, Nigeria has provided instances of substantive and decisive leadership in the past. In the 1970s for instance, Nigeria used its weight within the then Organisation of African Unity (O.A.U.) to persuade African nations to support the Marxist MPLA faction in the Angolan Civil War.

It was a major player in opposing White minority rule in South Africa and provided financial and material aid to those nations which were designated as the “Front Line States”. It also flexed its muscles against Western interests to the extent of nationalising British Petroleum assets in the country because it supplied oil to apartheid-era South Africa.

But what is particularly striking and revealing about the philosophy behind American foreign policy was the reaction of the United States to Nigeria’s successful efforts in policing the West African region and effecting a peace settlement in the Liberian Civil War in the 1990s.

[/size]

pazienza: Natural but rare, since she is still part of nature.

but you won't call that a human being;would you ? even though it was born by a human.

pazienza: What is natural and what isn't,is a cyclic arguement.

To me,anything that can occur in nature,is natural. Homosexualism, racism,theft,fornication,adultery,teenage pregnancy,etc, can occur in nature,so are all natural.

how would you classify a baby born with one big green eye, a gill, two bat like wings, reptilian scales and instead of two legs she has four dinosaur like legs. She is purely carnivorous and poikilothermic.
Would that be classified as natural ?

Denise216: I don't require acceptance for my perspectives anymore than the OP should. None of the points, particularly the ones I've chosen focus on, are legitimate premises for opposing same-sex marriage in any given society.

Lets take your example of plants/herbs used as contraceptives/abortion inducers; This was not their original purpose in nature but humans found a way to use harness its properties for a desired consequence. That is Applied Science by definition. What you're expanding on is Pure Science. There is a clear distinction between these terms. I don't know if you're expecting some long reply but its unnecessary.

sorry but your example is not valid since you did not state the real purpose of those plants.
The actual facts is that the properties which made those substance a contraceptive is endowed by nature and in the real sense the only purpose of the plant is to exhibit those properties and nothing more. Just like we can harness the many properties of wood irrespective of what tree it is to build furniture and we are also aware that not all woods are dark,grey or white.

If you read and i believe you do, you should know that when discussing science in the context of society their is no distinction between applied or pure; as all constitutes an enquiry into nature.

On Point! at least nature put all males and females together and we knew why it had to be so. so when two males have whatever they call sex and one of them gives us a baby them we can know that nature has changed.

Antivirus92: The day nature will allow unlike charges(of magnets or electricity) to attract is the day i will turn to gay. For now,nature(GOD) is still ruling me.

Denise216: Your issue is more so with my gender more than my post. Just keep in mind that you having an issue with my biology is just that, your issue-not mine. Moving on.

Applied science has allowed mankind to survive and thrive in conditions unheard of in the last 5 centuries. The natural consequence of pregnancy, a basic human function, has even been averted. There were valid reasons to believe the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and that certain peoples were meant to serve others by divine or natural law. All of these perspectives were proven wrong. You can expand on man's relationship with nature or "God" to include nuances but the fact remains that Nature, and the non existent God, are no longer viable reasons to intrude on the rights of tax paying citizens in any society.

You know what baffles me is how you have made several post without ever trying to give a reason to accept your proposition, you just proclaim something and expect that we must accept that, have you ever defended a thesis in your life ? or you just tell your audience to accept what you said or go jump themselves.

Applied Science has allowed mankind......... what is science ? if not an inquiry to nature, is there any form of science that does not arise from curiosity of finding ways solve human inefficiencies by exploiting natural laws ? you thrive in whatever condition you are implying is a fact that humans understand Nature now better than before then and nothing else.

Is avoiding Pregnancy or contraception not a result of careful observation of the Natural Process of inception and therefore with such understanding it could be avoided where inadequate ? contraceptions has always been part of many civilizations for centuries because they carefully observed the Natural process by which it occurs and with knowledge of other natural processes the were able to avoid or terminate pregnancies.

The topic is "10 reasons why Homosexual marriage is harmful and must be Opposed" so if you are going to post again please make a post that has points we can use.

some things were proven wrong and one of those things which has been never been proven wrong was that there is God. if it has been proven then you can refer us to your proof.

Denise216: Starting with a "Do you mean that" is an attempt to misrepresent. Procreation isn't a valid premise to dispute the virtue of same sex marriage. That is my perspective, no more, no less.

Some one dictates for us her perspective and without reason no explanation tries to force it'down on us , and we should accept for no other reason just that it is her perspective. Sorry but we are not your subjects Queen Denise.

Denise216: And yes humanity has conquered nature and there is no contradiction. The human need to understand nature isn't driven by curiosity, it is to conquer it for the use of sustaining the species at best. Everything else your in reply in regards to nature is filler. Sometimes I wonder if expanding on unnecessary/unrelated details should even be considered a qualified rebuttal.

can you read yourself ? how do they even conquer it ? maybe you can explain for us what you mean by conquer in this context.

Until you can prove that there is a God, and you can't, it really doesn't matter if you believe me or not. If anything it's an arrogant attempt to place priority on your personal perspective on my time. I wouldn't suggest doing that, it's intrusive.

A simple anthropological research will inform you that humans from time immemorial has valid reasons to believe in God, though reason might differ by geographical extensions but they all contain the same underlining attribute which is the inability to explain certain aspects of nature coupled with profoundly deep philosophical excursions into oneself and the unanswered questions that arose from such.

Falling about without raising facts and ordering people to accept your stance is a pure example of arrogance.

Bleep.u.sexkills:
If they run away, we should be prepared to help Buhari's Administration to hunt them down and bring them to justice. Operation return the loot!

Okay, i really pray that Buhari becomes president.

Bleep.u.sexkills:
Buhari is the man we need and this moment in Nigeria to serve just 4 year and rid Nigeria of our one and only problem; corruption.

Sai Buhari!

Did i hear you say 4 years ? Once he is declared the winner of the presidential election you will be disappointed to see those thieves leaving the country even before Buhari acquires the official power to do anything.

Denise216: The premises of nature and procreation are weak and inconsistent.

Procreation: Consider the global human population, only a small percentage in comparison can even afford to sustain the children they make, creating an added burden on limited resources. Humans have no need to further produce offspring. In fact children these days are no more than a means to secure financial resources for women from government a/o willing males. This is true in developed and undeveloped regions.

Nature: Humans have conquered most of nature but we champion it all while we type/txt our responses on cordless electronic devices in air conditioned rooms with artificial light sources. Humans living in areas contrary to their evolved physical characteristics is in of itself against nature.

Oh, and there is no God to offend or dictate morality. Sorry kids, Sky Daddy is a myth.

I fail to see the point on your reference to procreation, do you mean to say that Homosexuality is nothing but a means to reduce human population ?

You should first try to understand what is Nature , what the laws of nature are . then you can see that your assumption that humans CONQUERED NATURE IS WRONG, in the sense that it contradicts itself by its own definition.
If you have never given it enough thought i can save you the headache by informing you that humans have never conquered nature and there has never been any plan or effort to do such, rather humans try to UNDERSTAND THE LAWS OF NATURE and with that knowledge improve their life standards. everything you have mentioned above is based on the law of nature and how deep it is understood, electromagnetic waves were not created by humans rather humans used its laws(enforced by nature) to make their life better and once you deviate from those laws which guide it your whole endeavor will fail. modern communications technology is based on either optics(laws of light) or electromagnetic(laws which guide movement of energy in space) and both are natural laws. so is all technological inventions that man has ever had.

earth has only one source of energy, which is the sun and based on Natural Law of Conservation of Energy, energy can not be created no destroyed rather we can turn the natural sunlight to chemical energy then transport and back to light energy to light our rooms.

Talking about God, i will rather believe you when can give me a reason to believe that there is no God.

In all your post makes not sense at all.

Buhari 2015!!!!
We need to give Nigeria a Direction!!

birdman: ^I dont agree with half of thoth's 10 points, but there are at least 3 points he makes that have nothing to do with interracial marriage. Im pretty sure mixed couples can have babies.

Well.........three points is enough if you ask me .....

*Kails*:
you know some folks view interracial marriage the same way right?

Intelligent people will really consider other peoples view only if they can hear and understand their reasons for having such views, so when somebody say" inter-racial marriages are harmful and must be opposed" ask him or her what are his reasons for doing so, if he gives you none then just ignore him cus he is a fool, if he does give you a reason you should be honest with yourself and analyze his reasons against established facts and your own common sense.

i hope you will do the right thing.

[size=16pt]10 Reasons Why Homosexual “marriage” Is Harmful And Must Be Opposed[/size]


1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)



http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html

Pyrrho: I have chosen to rely on the ability of reason God gave me.
Do u think God doesn't know that gays exist?
People shouldn't try to help God like he is handicapped. Killing that man is bad, even as I continue to think about it.

Do you think that God does not know armed robbers exist ?
Do you think that God does not know that serial Killers exists ?
Do you think that God does not know that Boko Haram Exists ?
Do you think that God does not know that Ritualist who kill their fellow humans for rituals and sleep and dine with the devil exist ?
Do you think that God does not know that crazy people like you exists ?

donlawrenzo: rest in peace. na wa for all this homosexuals o, see as fine girls full everywhere them still choose to tidy man with strong body. God forbid. I smh for them

i wonder that myself. women are more beautiful these days from what we have back in the days and i don't understand how guys can totally ignore that and go for a fellow man.

My posts has never changed rather i only expanded my points to make it easy to understand for readers whom i believe could not extract its meaning in its original form but then again i read your last post and others you made elsewhere and concluded you are not the sort i would like to engage in a debate.
For others who might be reading this:
Nigeria has never had a foreign policy drawn on the interest of its citizens except during the regimes of Buhari and Abacha, if you study nigerian foreign relations in other regimes then you will easily find out which group influenced nigerian policies at all the other times.

patriot4: Once again you change your story. That kills your credibility even more.
You started your reasoning with the belief that we were a puppet state, and from there you speculated. We proved you wrong, then you gave an other speculation, we proved you wrong again, then you gave yet an other speculation.
The only thing that doesn't change in what you say is that you keep claiming we took orders.
So you have no credibility.
When Nigeria started the struggle against apartheid in the 70's, the west was against us, but we went all the way. Who was controlling us then ? I ask you. This is Nigeria not mali or chad or ivory coast or ghana or south africa. Here we fight for Africa. Nigeria already stated in an AU summit in 2009 that Bashir should not be arrested by African states, and that is what we did.

abdulsleemzy: Wish ABACHA is still alive.... Him for don insult their father

My thoughts, Abacha really knows how to ignore them with proper dignity.

patriot4: So you think we can not arrest a man we dispatched soldiers to guard ?
I should have guessed that you were a south african.
You south africans like commenting on our affairs, and you only have hate towards us.
You must paint Nigeria the worse way possible going the extra mile of saying things that defy common sense.
ICC asked for Nigeria to arrest Bashir as soon as he reaches the airport. But instead Nigeria gave him the welcomming of a president according to protocol. Nigeria alowed him to attend the meeting and gave him a security team to keep him safe from the so called "activists". So Nigeria gave ICC the finger. And Nigerian presidency said that Bashir was not arrested because the AU had decided otherwise. Therefor Nigeria placed AU decisions higher than those of european ICC.
south africans, you guys are a pathetic bunch of jealous braggats who can not stand the idea of progress in other african countries than yours.

First of all i am not South African, secondly since you guys are so naive not to understand my post i can only tell you that as the west was persuading Nigeria to arrest, china has already succeeded in getting the Nigerian President to promise that he would not. china has been protecting the Sudanese president from all sorts of International intimidation by the west and many contract and loan negotiations that china had with many African and south American countries contain certain policies that particularly imply the Sudanese and a few other African Chinese ally .

The west is not the only superpower capable of persuasions, at the moment china uses its Soft-Power to achieve more than the west can do with its brutish stance.

emmysenior: Blood is thicker than water...

AU is closer to us than the UN, they don't expect us to betray our brothers cos of their hypocritical agendas...

Obasanjo betrayed African So many times.

patriot4: Wrong, Nigeria defied ICC.
And Bashir trusted Nigeria, that is why he came.
Nigeria gave ICC the finger and gave AU the upper hand.
ICC and HRW were calling for Bashir's arrest, but we did not arrest him.
At least wait to hear what Bashir has to say.
Moreover, he left only after the summit.

Nigeria would never arrest him until after the summit, arresting him before that will be sort of dashing the concept of African Union, that they did not succeed did not mean they did not try to. you should understand that the Sudanese president is also a puppet to china just like Nigeria is a puppet to USA/Britain.
Some things are taken at their face value but actually there was a lot that went on behind the scenes.

someday you may get to hear what really happened...if we are lucky.

The Sudanese president is no fool, he knows that Nigeria is a puppet state and nobody's security is guaranteed even that of its own citizens which she would readily hand over to any nation that asks for it.

@OP
can you get more information on this ?

The North has a reputation and an image which the press uses as tool to promote their dis-information campaign, imagine if Buhari's election was rigged, what options has he? he goes to court and the bribed judges now rules against him.
there are two things people fail to see.

1: Not only Reactionary Nigerians want Buhari to lose, these politicians has little to lose than the multinationals that continuously and blatantly exploit this nation of its wealth, the nations and forces that want this great nation to disintegrate will have a lot to loose, the people whom set up, financed and trained Boko Haram will lose more, the groups which does not want a regional power with resources like Nigeria to influence their neocolonialist machinations like Abacha and Malu did in Liberia and Sierra-Leon will lose more. So they will go to extremes to see that he does not win.

When such a large interest is concentrated on a single outcome I usually lose my trust on the judiciary(judges) of such nations and their pronouncements (Pfizer drug Scandal) and that leads to the second point.

2: On such occasion whereby vested interests can bribe and thereby cripple the judges it becomes even more dangerous to subject ones fate on the outcome of a legal battle, the ruling of a Judge automatically makes any group that opposes it illegal, their actions or reactions towards such unfair rulings a crime, thereby justifying any means violent or deadly with which the Reactionaries chooses to quell it with.
Once the Judge says the Buhari loses, the Movement loses morale, they lose that psychological steam which compels them to move forward, the belief of “doing the right thing” automatically vanishes with such pronouncement. Secondly I noticed that the corrupt press usually attach any damages as a result of such demonstration to Buhari as if he commanded it whence in reality the masses are just venting their anger to the blatant disregard of their worth and right as citizens of the nation.
On this platform the law alone will not suffice. All Tyrants have laws that legitimize their hold on power and their right to defend it.

Enlightenment is the only answer, Buhari should campaign in the south eastern cities and after each campaign enlightened south easterners will strive to educate the people more on the history of the man and his endeavors to achieve the best for all. He should do the same in the south western cities. He has credible evidence to prove his loyalty to the nation unlike others.

Have you noticed that all Nigerian press and media always try to ridicule Buhari and quote him out of context? How then do you think the people will get the truth about him.

GenBuhari: I do not think it is about enlightening the South East.

The North rioted because the rigging was more glaringly obvious in the North and less so in the South East.

Our problem is our corrupt press which is working to subdue the presses and make them accept rigged elections by claiming rigged elections were free and fair.

I truely think the fight should be taken to the corrupt press.

Nigeria has got problems oo!

GenBuhari: But last time Buhari supporters went on the streets to protest rigged elections our corrupt press presented it as tribal protest against a president from the south.

Perhaps organised peaceful protests should be planned in advance and be carried out in the event of rigged elections

That is why i mentioned enlightening people from the southeast and south west, if the demonstration constitute only people from the north it will be termed sectarian and will be easy to quell on that premise, if the demonstration come from the three regions, there will be hardly any excuse to disperse it, the regime will be forced(if they are stupid) to use violence in the dispersion and that would make them illegitimate and provide a reason to mount pressure. if they ignore the demonstration(as their foreign advisers would advice) they would have a civilian crisis at their hands .if the youths can continue going with it(which i doubt they will), they might finally achieve something though not necessary having Buhari installed.
However it is important to make a point,
Movements of such capacity can never be achieved unless there is a nationwide enlightenment.
The whole region must contribute towards the demonstration and must stand on one idea.

now these two points above is what i think Buhari does not think about, i think if he really cares about the country the way he speaks he should try to work with other people.

Ajibel: Even if I'm to agree with the author of this article, I believe his points listed are exaggerations of the current problems we are facing. And saying 160mill Nigerians dumb That's unforgivable and this shouldn't make fp

His points are an understatement and the real problems if presented as large and destructive as they are will leave you speechless.

GenBuhari: So what is would be the alternative?

People have to go on the streets after the election, mostly on the south and south east. that is the only way. that means people had to be enlightened about this man and what he represents.
Buhari himself is not helping matters, all his life he only had plans for the north, ideas for the north, policies for the north, developments plans for the north. I do understand that some regions can do well on their own if things clear up in the country but the man has to understand that democracy is a numbers game. if he chooses to stay put then these lying media and their friends will paint him black everywhere else.

GenBuhari: [size=18pt]22nd January 1985 - ITN News
NIGERIA: FOURTH CONGRESS OF OATUU OPENS IN LAGOS.[/size]

One of the subjects for discussion at the week-long meeting was the IMF's (International Monetary Fund) role in Africa.

The OATUU prepared a 15-page report on the "danger" the IMF poses to the African continent, and delegates were being asked to take a strong stance against it.

when great men ruled Africa. men who can look evil in the eye,call its name and curse it.