₦airaland Forum

helinues:
Farooq, have respect for your elders

Illiterate. You clearly did not read the post.

If there was anyone Apostle Arome would have listened to in this world on this matter, it would have been Dr. Akpami.

schoolboymatt:
some people just get mind

some risks are just too risky, and this is a perfect example.

Actually, it's safer than a human-driven car.

Judolisco:
Remove Ronaldo put Palmer or Watkins abeg

You mean Harry Kane?

EreluRoz:
I'll always chose Atiku over that sneaky pretentious thief Onuku Peter Obi .

I like people who still play fair irrespective of their differences, that's how I am, I may not agree with someone but you'll catch me defending the person elsewhere and you'll wonder what type of person I am. Hatred doesn't penetrate my precious skin.

To those I'll mannered and untrained kids that'll laugh at this and spew nonsense you should relax and wait for what advanced age has in waiting for you, it is just a normal slip which could happen to anyone.

You think this is fair play. You are not wise. This is veiled sarcasm. Fair play would have been to keep quiet about it.

Parydelegate:
AI generated speech

AI would have done better.

TheTravelingOne:
Yes of course I can. I will return to nothing but I can still return. Question is, do I want too. I have lived abroad for a long time now, spending in between in the US. Lived in Europe , Switzerland….&’yes I’m a black American woman. I am just a traveler. So who knows where I will end up, somewhere affordable though.

Okay, you also said you are with his family. Does it mean that he left without telling them also or that they are no longer in contact with him? Knowing Nigerians, that's unlikely don't you think?

Ounje bricklayer
The thing funny sha.

TheTravelingOne:
I’m not a liability like you are saying. I work and make USD, I’m good financially. But being thrown away and abandoned in a foreign country doesn’t feel good.

Can't you just return to the US?

Nbotee:
Some of you have problems. When a plane disappears from radar it most likely to have crashed. What's wrong with his "Otilo"? Una go just dey wan sound politically correct and end up making mockery of yourselves.

Don't mind her. When a plane disappears from radar, it usually does not end in good news.

I'm tired of this merry-go-round. So, this will be my last take on this matter

JessicaRabbit:
The example with gum is a false equivalence. Human identity and expression aren't so neatly compartmentalized. What constitutes human identity is a combination of various threads of sexuality, gender, creativity, culture, and experience. Unlike neatly labeled folders on a computer desktop, these aspects of our humanity don't exist in isolation. They intersect, influence, and inform one another in beautiful and complex ways.

Once again, sexual desire is biological. A castrated man will retain all other aspects of his identity. Is a castrated gay man still gay? I think not.

When I mentioned LGBTQ+ individuals and families, I wasn't trying to convince you of their existence (though, I'm happy to provide you with a crash course in reality if needed). I was merely highlighting the fact that the human experience is rich in complexity and multifaceted in nature. There's no desperation needed to point out simple truths.

Now you're sounding like a broken record. Once again, you can have a rich human experience sans sexual desire. There are asexual individuals. Would you say they experience a "less rich" human experience than other people?

You're only just projecting here. Sexual attraction is absolutely a component for many LGBTQ+ folks. I've never denied that, and that's the difference between you and me. Where I acknowledge that there are many factors at play, you continue to assert that there's only one involved, and then you shut your eyes, stick your fingers in your ear like a bitter toddler, and think repeating yourself over and over will make the truth go away. If you had any self-awareness at all, you'd easily see the double standards you've set here. Is heterosexuality just about being attracted to the opposite sex?

Like I said, yes. For homosexuality and heterosexual relationships, sexual desire is the driving factor.

Isn't it also about the desire for emotional connection, building a life with someone, sharing dreams and vulnerabilities? Sexuality, for everyone, is a complex layer of emotional threads, social connections, and a yearning for intimacy.

All of these can be detached from the desire for sex. Do asexual individuals yearn for these same things or not? If your answer is yes, what does that tell you?

Refusing to acknowledge this only demonstrates that you lack any shred of intellectual integrity and/or honesty in this discussion. For LGBTQ+ people in particular, navigating that layer can be even more challenging. Coming to terms with your identity, facing societal pressures, and finding a community that accepts you -- these are all part of the experience, not to mention the courage it takes to live authentically in the face of prejudice. That is something to be admired, not dismissed.

Okay. You are a social justice warrior. That's cool.

A mudslide wiping out a village isn't a herring at all, red or otherwise. It's a brutal reminder that nature's a force far grander than our puny attempts to impose meaning on it. We can study ecosystems, sure, but claiming perfect understanding is like trying to tame a hurricane with a fly swatter. Mutations happen, sometimes good, sometimes bad, and sometimes just plain weird. There's no grand plan, no cosmic CEO dictating which creature gets the gold star.

Cosmic CEO? Let me get straight. You are trying to explain that your last comment was not a red herring by introducing another red herring? Alright.😁

Don't be silly. Our universe's existence is not contingent upon our approval or understanding. It simply is. So your conflation of scientific inquiry with existential justification is a perfect example of a category error. The universe doesn't owe us an explanation for its existence; we're just fortunate enough to be a part of it, trying to make sense of our place within it. The onus is on us to understand, not on the universe to justify.

That's what you got from that? I meant we are looking for justifications (reasons, explanations) for the phenomena we observe. I didn't mean that the universe had to justify itself to us. How would it even accomplish that?

As I've pointed out ad nauseum, evolution is a blind process, devoid of purpose or direction. It's a meandering path shaped by chance, adaptation, and environmental pressures. And guess what? Human sexuality, in all its diverse and complex forms, is a natural outcome of that process. To imply that heterosexuality is the "direction" evolution intended is nothing short of intellectual hubris. The beauty of evolution lies in its ability to create complexity, diversity, and yes, even purposelessness.

Again, evolution is not purposeless in the sense that you speak of. It seeks to pass on beneficial traits.

I don't know if you think human empathy is a political performance. There's a world of difference between understanding the "naturalness" of an impulse and using that as a weapon to deny people their humanity. Let's be frank, straight folks don't exactly have their procreation instincts surgically removed when they commit to a life partnership, do they? We accept the spectrum of human experience, the biological and social factors that weave together to make us who we are. Your point about love, commitment, and family being different across sexual orientations is a blatant red herring. The bedrock of these isn't some preordained biological script. It's about building a life with someone you love and cherish, about raising healthy and happy children. These desires transcend the mechanics of reproduction, and frankly, LGBTQ+ couples have a long and storied history of building beautiful, fulfilling families. [quote]@bold, are joking?
How do you explain people who only want to have sex without commitment in the light of what you've just written?



[quote]Recall that the question was about reducing human desires and attractions to a single "biological process". You're the one who asked for examples of intangible desires, and I gave you a plethora of possibilities -- emotions, experiences, shared values -- all of which are very real, yet can't be held in one's hand. Now, you say no one has denied their reality, but your initial stance implied that these complexities could be simplified, even dismissed, in favor of a more... let's say, "concrete" explanation. So, I'm not shadow boxing, just simply highlighting the limitations of your perspective. The beauty of human connection lies in its messiness, its unpredictability, its refusal to be reduced to a single, tangible (or should I say, observable?) explanation.

And she says the same thing again and again. My tired is tired 😩.
Again I ask. Do asexual people experience the who spectrum of human experience in your opinion?

No one asked for your opinion. And I'm not going to modify my tone to cater to your feelz. It would do you good if you devoted less energy to wounded pride and stick to trying to construct an actual argument.

Very well.
If combining words like a mentally ill person in a bid to come off as more intelligent than you actually are is your modus operandi, by all means, continue.
Wounded pride? Pfft

I'm appalled that you believe, for some odd reason, that you can slip this dishonest move past me, and I won't notice. This is a shameless backtracking from your original position. You've obviously retreated from your initial assertion that homosexual relationships do NOT exist without sex, and now you're attempting to rebrand your bigotry as a nuanced perspective.

No one is backtracking. Homosexual relationships do not exist without sexual behavior. Period. It's on you to show otherwise. You haven't.

I'm guessing you've truly got a case of sheer cluelessness, or perhaps you just enjoy playing dumb. This "no gay gene" rhetoric you keep submitting is a classic example of misunderstanding the complexity of human sexuality. Sexual orientation is not determined by a single gene, but by a multifaceted interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors, which the scientific community has extensively documented. The APA's position is based on a comprehensive review of decades-long research, including studies on twin cohorts, brain structure, and hormone levels, all pointing to the same conclusion: sexual orientation is not a choice, but a natural part of human diversity. So, when you're done chasing fishes in the sky, please provide your empirical evidence to counter this consensus. Don't rely on outdated notions of a single "gay gene"; instead, engage with the wealth of scientific research that's been done. The burden of proof is on you to disprove the overwhelming evidence, not on me to defend it.

Overwhelming evidence? Overwhelming?

But that's precisely the point -- these rat populations are merely surviving, not truly living. Human flourishing is not just about mere existence or propagation, but about experiencing life in all its richness and depth. Given your antecedents, I'm guessing you'd probably prefer it if we settled for a mere rat-like existence, devoid of meaningful connections and personal growth.

What you call human flourishing is not possible without propagation. I'm tired of repeating myself.

Dopamine doesn't dictate morality or what's natural. Humans are complex creatures driven by a multitude of factors, both biological and social. Art and music also trigger dopamine release. Are you going to tell me those aren't fundamental aspects of the human experience?

Part of the human experience, yes. Fundamental, no.

People aren't disorders to be diagnosed, they're human beings to be respected. Stop masking your ignorant judgments with a veneer of medical jargon.

Stop masking your inability to answer the question with false empathy. Is a pica diagnosis dehumanizing?

Again, it's pointless to imbue a natural process with a sense of purpose or conscious intent. Evolution may tend towards complexity and adaptation, but that doesn't imply a grand design or inherent value judgment.



By all means, take your time.



I know. It must be exhausting being so utterly out of your depth in this discussion. Meanwhile, I'll grab a snack while you try again. Seventh time's the charm? 😁

Shadow boxing as usual. No one has implied a grand design. However, the universe is not as random as you've tried to make it out to be throughout this discussion. However, that's a topic for another thread.

Diversity is not a one-dimensional concept. A diverse talent pool in all its forms -- racial, ethnic, sexual orientation -- brings a wider range of perspectives to the table. Scientific breakthroughs often come from challenging existing paradigms, seeing the world from a different angle, and LGBTQ+ people inherently understand that. They've had to navigate a world that wasn't built for them, and that often leads to unique perspectives and lots of innovation. This isn't about some abstract ideal of "sexual diversity". It's all about building a society that works for everyone, where everyone has the chance to contribute their talents and reach their full potential. That's the kind of society that thrives, not just some narrow, exclusionary definition of what it means to be a productive member. Economics aside, don't you want to live in a society where everyone has the freedom to be themselves? To contribute their full potential, not just a part dictated by some arbitrary social norm? Inclusion isn't charity, you know.

Another disingenuous thing you've done throughout this thread is to use diversity and sexual desire like they're synonyms. Dealing with that kind of dishonesty is tiring really. The rest of the comment is just woke speaking. Sorry, had to use "woke" again.😁

Imaginary enemy indeed. The initial statement you made, rooted in the idea that the majority's discomfort with homosexuality justifies discrimination, is the very definition of advocacy for discrimination. You keep throwing up smokes and mirrors to desperately deflect from the absolute poverty of your position. Don't try to hide behind a veil of semantics. Surely, you knew that your words WILL have consequences. Yes, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was indeed adopted by a vote, but one that represented a global consensus on the fundamental principles of human dignity, not a popularity contest. The Declaration sets a universal standard, not a subjective opinion poll. Now, please justify why the rights of a marginalized group should be subject to the whims of the majority. I'm still waiting for you to answer the question: how do you propose we reconcile your discriminatory beliefs with the principles of equality and human rights?

You should work on your tendency to stray off topic. This thread is not about marginalization or discrimination.

The ease with which you dismiss the struggles of marginalized communities is a testament to your privilege. Your refusal to acknowledge the harm caused by your words is not a sign of intellectual superiority, but rather a display of emotional immaturity. If you really wish to engage in any meaningful discussion, I would suggest you delve deeper into the complexities of human experience and the impact of your words on real people's lives. Otherwise, your comments remain mere platitudes, devoid of empathy and substance.

You can't resist the urge to be a social justice crusader, can you?

Sorry, but I don't do strawmen. I simply highlight the glaring lack of substance in your rejoinders and watch you flail about trying to understand your own ignorance. Claiming I always introduce strawmen is just a pathetic lie you've manufactured to make yourself feel better about the fact that you're empty as far as this discussion is concerned. And now that you're being confronted with the emptiness of your own arguments, you're resorting to declarations of exhaustion, a clever tactic to avoid the discomfort of being exposed. You may do as you wish, but just know that I'll be here to rip apart any more nonsense you post on this topic. I already told you before that we can keep going for as long as you wish.

We're going round in circles. Is that not exhausting for you? You have refused to confront the meat of the matter. Instead, you insist on tying homosexuality to things like creativity and emotional connection.

Tunnel vision at its finest. You're correct that the article talks about the biological underpinnings of love, about the chemicals that makes our hearts race and palms sweat. But it also talked about how these hormones are triggered by social interaction. There's also the whole concept of attachment and bonding. Notice how these aren't purely physical responses, but involve building trust, intimacy, and shared experiences. It's the difference between ogling a stranger and feeling a deep connection with someone you care about. You should probably read your own article, one more time.

Trust, intimacy, and shared experiences may enrich the process but are not absolutely required. If they were, things like transactional sex, hookup, and one-night stands would not be so commonplace.

woojin:
he left treasure for his children

Do you have children?

Walter White never enjoyed his success.

Harkhin87:
Talking drum playing

I chuckled.

JessicaRabbit:
Maybe you can try typing it again in all caps, but it won't change a thing. Sexuality is just one aspect of human nature. Creativity is another. Love is another. However, they CAN all coexist within a beautiful, messy thing called the human experience. You're confusing your own subjective, limited worldview with the vast spectrum of human existence. There are countless LGBTQ+ artists who have poured their hearts and souls into their work, and countless LGBTQ+ couples who have built loving families, but if you'd prefer to live in a black and white world devoid of nuance, that's entirely your prerogative.

We are starting to go round in circles. The many aspects of what you call the human experience are mutually exclusive. How many times will I say this? I can walk and chew gum, it doesn't mean I need to walk to chew gum or vice versa.
Declaring that LGBTQ+ couples build loving families or individuals display creativity is really non sequitur. Your arguments about nuance do not follow at all and sound desperate.

Sure. Being a homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, or any other sexual minority is about deep emotional connections, sharing experiences, and supporting each other, which may or may not include sexual intimacy. The core of being gay is about feeling comfortable in your own skin, having strong relationships, and being brave enough to be yourself without apology. Human sexuality is inherently linked to emotional, social, and relational contexts, and cannot be fully understood or demonstrated in isolation from these factors.

Now you are playing the ostrich. The core of being gay is about sexual attraction or desire. It does not have to be linked to emotional, social, or relational contexts even though it can be be. To argue otherwise is plain dishonest.

Understanding a lot about nature doesn't mean you get to cherry-pick the bits that fit your narrative. Science is about inquiry, not confirmation bias. And like I said before, nature doesn't write mission statements. Lightning strikes, mountains erode, ecosystems teeter on a knife-edge of delicate balance. Is there a purpose to a mudslide wiping out a village?

We are speaking biologically. You insist on red herrings.

Obviously you weren't paying attention, else you'd notice that I already acknowledged that natural wonders are the result of processes. Your desperate (but failed) attempt to redefine terms was a laughable attempt to save face. No amount of semantic somersaults can conceal your bigotry. More importantly, you've somehow managed to outdo yourself in the art of missing the point. The universe doesn't need to justify its existence to you. The sun will keep setting, mountains will keep towering, and rivers will keep flowing, regardless of your approval. And, likewise, people will continue to love who they love, regardless of your outdated notions of "purpose".

No need to get testy. Science is an attempt to find justification for everything we see in the universe no? So, technically speaking, the universe has to "justify" itself to me...and to you by extension.

Life as we know it would also be impossible without the very purposeless forces of evolution that led to the diversity of human sexuality. Your argument is as shallow as it is predictable.

Irrelevant. The forces of evolution might appear purposeless but they tend to go in a direction. That path doesn't lead to homosexual behavior.

Are you really asking how love, commitment, and family are the same across sexual orientations? Have you actually never encountered a happy couple besides the ones you see in movies?



That's because sexuality, for most people, is a fundamental part of who they are. It's not some impulse you can just turn on and off for convenience. It's about identity, about love, about intimacy. You wouldn't understand the intricacies of quantum mechanics by focusing solely on its '"practical applications", would you? There's depth and complexity here, and erasing that with such crass language is frankly disrespectful.

And we are back to virtue signalling. Also, you are all over the place. No one is denying the impulses of gay people. The "naturalness" and purpose of those impulses is what the discourse is about. Love, commitment, and family are not the same across "sexual orientations." How can they be when the foundations are as different as night and day?

Tangible? Was the EndSARS protest tangible? It would never happen without the shared passion or the inspiration ignited by human connection, so would you agree that it was a tangible result of intangible connections? My point is: how do you define "tangible"? Are you defining it as something that has a real and undeniable impact, or you're taking it very literally, like something you can physically touch?

I think a better word would be "observable". We can observe the changes in behavior, the creation of art, the social movements born from these intangible connections. These are real, impactful results, even if the initial spark itself isn't a physical thing. Human connection goes far beyond simple biological processes. It's a mixture of emotions, experiences, and shared values. These may not be things you can hold in your hand, but their impact on our lives is undeniably tangible.

I'll define tangible as "not abstract".
You're shadow boxing. No one has said they are not real.

It wasn't a compliment, sorry. I meant to say that you're an anomaly, a deviation from the norm of thoughtful and compassionate discourse. A shining example of intellectual bankruptcy and emotional numbness. Your ability to spew forth thoughtless, insensitive drivel is truly a wonder to behold. It's almost like you're a black hole of critical thinking and emotional intelligence, sucking the life out of every conversation you touch.

So many words. You're obviously cerebral, but comments like these take the shine off your brilliance. Do better.

So you are practically implying that sex is the sole foundation of gay relationships, while heterosexual relationships get to enjoy the luxury of multifaceted connections? Ignoring the fact that it's a bald faced lie, it's also a refreshing example of heteronormative hypocrisy. Unbelievable. And you have the unmerited gall to preach about honesty?

Exactly. However, I don't say it is the sole foundation. I'll say it is the core one.

It's interesting to see you getting quite desperate here, trying to discredit the scientific consensus on human sexuality by nitpicking a single phrase, "more likely". Unfortunately for you, "more likely" in scientific parlance, means backed by empirical evidence and research, not conjecture. The American Psychological Association relies on the scientific method, as all reputable scientific organizations do, so your critique is dead on arrival. Provide empirical evidence to counter the scientific consensus, or toss in the sponge and accept the fact that science is not on your side here. I won't be holding my breath though, as your response will probably be more bluster and dogma.

Actually, empirical means that there is observable, practical evidence for a position. An example of an empirical inquiring into gay behavior will be the search for a gay gene. What empirical evidence do you base your "scientific consensus" on?

And I'm assuming that your love life is strictly focused on the dopamine-driven aspects, totally neglecting the values of empathy, trust, and personal growth that are essential to human flourishing. Because, you know, purpose and procreation.

Empathy, trust, and personal growth no doubt enrich the human experience, but they are not required for a population to thrive, biologically speaking. Rat populations have been thriving for millenia (I presume) without any of these qualities. And this is despite man's attempts to wipe them out.

Even if we granted that homosexuality wasn't influenced by biology, it still wouldn't make it unnatural by necessity. Many things humans do are not directly tied to reproduction, but are considered natural aspects of human behavior.

They may not be tied to reproduction, but they are tied to dopamine and associated neurotransmitters.

Science is merely a tool to understand the mechanisms behind something, not the meaning. After all, the science of nutrition can explain how a meal is digested, but it can't capture the warmth of a family dinner or the comfort of eating your favorite food.



When disagreement morphs into dehumanization, it's not a worldview that's being challenged, but a human being that's being erased.

No one has dehumanized anyone. Highlighting an aspect of one's behavior that doesn't appear natural is not dehumanization. That would be like calling a pica diagnosis dehumanizing.

That's a descriptive mechanism, not a prescriptive purpose. Evolution doesn't "seek" or "aim" to achieve anything; it's a blind process without intention or direction. Moreover, even if we grant that evolution has a "purpose" in this limited sense, it doesn't follow that individual humans must conform to a predetermined purpose or value. As I said earlier, human autonomy and self-determination are essential aspects of our existence. We get to choose our own values, goals, and purposes, regardless of our sexual orientation or any other characteristic.

Biological evolution is not without direction.

It's not, sorry. I simply pointed out the beautiful absurdity of your narrow definition of love and family. Do keep up. 😉

Argument for another day then. 😁

The scientific consensus is clear: gender identity is a complex, personal aspect of a person's identity that is not a choice, but an intrinsic part of who they are. Don't try to disguise your prejudice as rational argument -- it reeks of desperation and hate. Get educated, or get left behind. Love and identity are human rights, not tools for your petty moral grandstanding.

I'm tired of repeating myself.

...and your argument would be flat out wrong. You're making it sound as if society is a beehive, focused solely on cranking out drones. We're humans, not fungible worker bees. Population decline is not an apocalyptic countdown. There are economic adjustments that can be made. Look at Japan, for instance. They're innovating in robotics and automation to address their shrinking workforce. The bigger picture here is about progress, about a society that thrives, not just survives. Diverse populations with a range of skills and backgrounds are the engine of innovation.

Diverse populations, yes. Sexually diverse, not necessary at all. We don't need "sexual diversity" to thrive. For God's sake!🤨

I'm not surprised that you managed to pull out the ad populum card -- probably one of the most antiquated logical fallacies -- from your dusty shelf of poor arguments. The fact that you can even make such a pathetic point speaks to your shallow intellectual depth. Going by your logic, slavery was right, and should've never been abolished. Apartheid was right. Denying women's suffrage was right. After all, they were all widely accepted once upon a time, right? Human rights are not subject to popular vote or opinion polls. They are inherent and inalienable, regardless of cultural or personal beliefs. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, sets a clear standard for the protection of human dignity and well-being. It's not a matter of "accepting something repulsive," but rather recognizing the fundamental humanity and worth of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. So, I will ask you again: how do you propose we reconcile discriminatory beliefs with the principles of equality and human rights?

Right back at you. Like most UN resolutions or commitments, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is also the result of a popular vote no? At no point have I advocated for discrimination of any kind. You're fighting an imaginary enemy.

If you truly believe that all individuals deserve equal rights and dignity, then show me the receipts. Show me how your constant attempts on this thread to label homosexual acts as "unnatural", doesn't reinforce the systems of oppression. Until then, your words are plain gaslighting -- nothing more than hollow, vacuous platitudes.

Discrimination, homophobia, transphobia, etc are terms people on your side of the aisle bandy about to prevent your weird views from being challenged. I owe you no receipts.

Style without substance, he cries, while offering all the depth of a kiddie pool. Thanks for the compliments all the same. I'll be sure to polish my style while you, uh...work on refuting arguments that are actually, you know, there. Maybe with a bit more effort, your next rejoinder will have both substance and the sting of a wet napkin.

You have no arguments. You willfully ignore the crux of the discourse and insist on arguing against a strawman you introduced. It's an unwinnable battle. I'm tired.

Having consumed it from start to finish (at great pains too!), I'm particularly curious as to what you hoped this article you cited was supposed to accomplish for you, because it actually argues against the idea that sexuality is devoid of romantic, social or relational context, a point I've been yammering on for quite some time now. I'll share my reasons in bullet points below:

- First, the article dives deep into the role of hormones like dopamine and oxytocin in attraction, attachment, and bonding. These hormones cannot be triggered without any forms of social interaction and/or emotional connection.

- It then talks about lust, attraction, and attachment as distinct aspects of love, implying a complexity that goes beyond just physical desire. Attraction, for instance, involves reward pathways which are triggered by spending time with someone you care about.

- There's also talks about jealousy, erratic behavior, and unhealthy emotional dependence, all of which are social and relational aspects of love.

- It mentions how oxytocin can influence ethnocentrism, highlighting the social and cultural factors that shape love.

- Funnily enough, the article even acknowledges that everyone defines love for themselves, implying a role for personal experiences and emotions beyond just hormones. No matter how you choose to look at it, that's +1 for my position in this debate!

For what it's worth, I appreciate this vigorous defense of my position, even if it was purely unintentional. 😂

Where does it state the bold. The point is that what you have been calling the human experience of love is founded upon a complex chemical interplay. As usual, you chose to see something else.

Reno.
Kai. What a stupid human.

KnowledgePower7:
My mother was a victim of this Nonesense
This was many years ago!!
The day our last born sister was very sick

My mother carried Chosen vest and placed on her. My elder bro sent her money for hospital

But my mama, was delaying saying we must wait for her pastor to lay hands on the sick girl before we take her to hospital.

We argued and argued
Until I forcefully pushed my mother out of the way. She tried to stop me

That was when for the first time in my life
I beat my mother very well
I beat her so Tay neighbors started fighting me
Omo I beat my mumsi black and blue

Ever since, she no dey carry that useless church matter come our side.

Doctor was thanking us for rushing my sis to hospital on time. Said if we had delayed by couple minutes. Her blood sugar would have gotten so high that she would have been in coma.

Imagine I listened to my brainwashed mother
That our last born would have been dead by now.

I hope say you dey joke sha.

Robertgreene1:
Interesting....an lgbo adage says that since birds have learnt how to fly without perching that hunters have learnt how to shoot without missing...
So since hook up girls think they have learnt how to enjoy the good life that comes with hookup... without paying the full consequences....Ritualists have also learnt how to use them by any means possible!!!
One million naira for ur smelly kpekus for a weekend because you fine pass Omotola and Priyanka Chopra combined together abi?
Fish brains!!!

So because they do hook up they should be killed abi. According to your adage, they should die because they want to "enjoy the good life that comes with hook up.
To think a person as stupid as you are chose Robert Greene as their moniker.
Ode.

JessicaRabbit:
The LGBTQ+ community isn't about sex acts (It's sad that I have to point out this obvious concept). It's about celebrating individuality, embracing diversity, and living life in full color. So please, let's ditch the anal fixation. Thank you.

This is so dishonest. Of course I guess if you tell yourself a lie long enough, you begin to believe it.

JessicaRabbit:
I'm starting to wonder if you're even qualified to have this discussion, because you've built your entire case on a thorough misunderstanding of basic human biology. I never said homosexuality causes creativity or love. I said they're all interconnected aspects of the human experience.

And I say they are not no matter how much you try to conflate them. There is no interconnection between homosexuality and creativity or love. They can be and are mutually exclusive. How did you even come to this "understanding"?

Remember you started by claiming homosexuality is just "sexual behavior," a dry, sterile definition. Then you conveniently switched just now to "sexuality exists in a vacuum." Sexuality isn't some light switch you can turn on and off for transactional purposes or solely for procreation. Animals exist who exhibit courtship behaviors, hinting at a bit more complexity. A vacuum is the complete, 180 degrees opposite of a vast range of human experience. Is sex always about love, creativity, or some grand existential exploration? Of course not. However, it would be naive and preposterous for us to therefore conclude that it never intersects with other aspects of being human. Ordinary meals can constitute social experiences, shared with loved ones, sparking conversation and connection. Sustenance isn't inherently social, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum either. Or don't you know there's a reason why candlelit dinners, while looking seemingly mundane, are considered romantic?

Give me a "non-sterile" definition of homosexuality that does not include sex or sexual behavior. I don't understand how the possible intersection of sexual attraction with other aspects of human behavior is an argument for homosexuality. Help me understand please.

Nature is incredibly complex and still largely unknown, and our understanding of it should be guided by science and empathy, not prejudice and dogma.

Nature is complex but we understand quite a lot about it. There's nothing prejudicial about stating the obvious. If anything, it's you who is exhibiting prejudice with your assumptions of prejudice and dogma.

You are just appealing to utility here, which is a type of logical fallacy. You seem to think that something is only natural or valid if it serves a purpose that aligns with your personal beliefs. But what about the countless natural phenomena that don't fit into your narrow definition of "purpose"? The sunset in the evenings, mountains, rivers - they came about through natural processes, but do these have inherent value simply because they exist? What is their preordained goal? Can you tell me?

The sunset, mountains, and rivers, are the result of processes. They are not processes. Keep up.

Dinosaurs thrived for millions of years but ultimately became extinct. Their existence wasn't inherently purposeful for the future. The laws of physics that govern our universe seem arbitrary. There's no specific reason why gravity works the way it does, for instance.

Life as we know it won't be possible without gravity. Are you serious right now?

Sexual orientation is a fundamental aspect of human identity, and the love, relationships, and families that LGBTQ+ individuals form are just as valuable and meaningful as yours, but please go on and keep repackaging harmful prejudices as rational discourse.

That's a bold claim. Mind showing how they're the same?

Convenience is your specialty, isn't it? You cherry-pick the abstractness of love and creativity to dismiss the complexity of human sexuality, while ignoring the very real, tangible experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals. That's not how proper discourse work, my dear.

I wanted the discourse to be about sexuality. It's you who kept introducing intangibles like love and creativity as excuses for queer sexual appetites.

You're essentially suggesting that the intricacies of human desire can be reduced to a pharmaceutical fix or gadget, right? And what about the vast range of human desires and attractions that can't be reduced to a single "biological process"? Are you going to dismiss those as "deviant outliers" too?

It would help if you gave examples of those desires that can't be "reduced to a pharmaceutical fix". Intangibles don't count.

The only thing I'm getting so far is that you are clearly an outlier in the realm of intellectual curiosity and empathy.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'll take it as a compliment.

I see where you're going, and I'm not impressed. You're still making a flawed and discriminatory assumption. The presence or absence of sexual attraction doesn't dictate the validity or worth of a relationship. Heterosexual relationships involve more than just sex too.

No one doubts this. However, homosexual relationships do not exist without sex. This is the point.

Of course you don't have a clue. That's pretty much been the pattern for you so far in this conversation. The spectrum I refer to is the natural variation in human sexuality, which has been extensively researched and documented by scientists and experts in the field. It's not even about fanciful acronyms or political ideologies. Sexual orientation, in particular, is understood to exist on a continuum, with some people identifying as exclusively straight, others as exclusively gay, and many others falling somewhere in between. This is backed by real science, including studies on human behavior, psychology, and biology. In this link for example, under the "What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation? subtopic, the American Psychological Association recognizes that sexual orientation is not a choice, but more likely a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors.

The validity of the "spectrum" you speak of is the crux of our discourse. The naturalness and purposefulness of that activity that is the core marker of same-sex relationships.
More likely?
Conjecture?

If we follow your logic, then any relationship, regardless of sexual orientation, can be reduced to mere dopamine-seeking behavior. So, what's the point of even having a conversation about love, relationships, or morality if it all boils down to "rat-like" pursuits?

The sexual aspect of those relationships is basically dopamine-seeking. It's nature's way of ensuring procreation and species continuation. Ergo: Purpose.

I'm going to guess that in your case, "science, logic, and common sense" are really just euphemisms for "I'm not aware of the last 50 years of research on human sexuality". Well then, thanks for playing, but I think I'll stick with the experts on this one.

What experimental processes did your "experts" utilize to arrive at this conclusion? I'm aware that the search for a gay gene has proven futile so far. That's how science works. It looks for hard evidence. None found so far.

Nope. That's not science. It's scientism. Science doesn't exist in a vacuum. It informs our understanding of the world, but it doesn't dictate the richness of human experience. We, as complex individuals, can build upon those biological drives and create things far more meaningful to our respective selves. So go ahead and make my day by demonstrating how achieving a physical response through technology suddenly invalidates emotional intimacy and shared vulnerability, together with the desire that leads to a truly fulfilling sexual connection? Can an electrode replicate the butterflies in your stomach before a date, or the quiet comfort of holding someone close? If we're strictly talking biology, then why hold back from advocating for polyamory or even zoophilia? After all, some animals do engage in non-monogamous and non-species-specific sexual behavior. But I suspect you might not be ready to go there, because suddenly, your "biological imperatives" argument becomes inconvenient.

Yes. Those feelings can be stimulated. There is a science to attraction.

And if you put hate in your heart, it's still hatred, no matter how you dress it up in the language of morality.

Disagreeing with your worldview is not hate.

You underestimate human adaptability. But more importantly, humans are social creatures, not just baby-making machines. Yes, people have kids, and then those kids have kids, and this is true in some form or another for every known species, but this is mostly just a process, not necessarily a value, or a purpose. Evolution/natural selection/reproduction does not act with a purpose. We can say that an individual's genes have been tailored over billions of years to be able to replicate themselves, but again, there is no purpose here, because purpose implies some sort of reasoning or planning. What you're doing here is blatantly disregarding individual autonomy. Moving past biology, there isn't any reason to assume that the value of humans as a species is some singular universal constant waiting to be discovered by everyone. Your value as a human is whatever you choose it to be, for better or for worse. There's no reason to talk about people's lives as if they have some sort of externally enforced purpose, and you seem to be assuming that there is one.

Wrong again. Evolution or natural selection has a purpose -- speaking generally, it's survival of the fittest and elimination of the unfit. Evolution seeks to confer attributes that make future generations survive and thrive. I'm not talking about anyone's life. We're talking about homosexual behavior in humans.

Love and family aren't confined to a rigid script. They're about devotion and support.

Straw man 😁

Does the science also lead you to dismiss the very real experiences and struggles of transgender individuals? Or do you only follow the science that confirms your pre-existing beliefs? If you follow science objectively, then you know that it seeks to understand and enlighten, not justify discrimination.

We're talking about unnatural sexual appetites. You insist on diversions -- red herrings and what not.

Well, that's just a dramatic oversimplification. Factors like delayed parenthood, economic pressures etc. also play a role in the falling birth rates in developed countries. People of all orientations contribute to society in diverse ways: through art, science, technology, caregiving, and more. Our collective advancement isn't solely tied to procreation, I've explained this already. Our survival as a species also has to do with diversity, not just quantity, because different perspectives, talents, and abilities enhance our collective resilience. By focusing solely on population numbers, you're ignoring the quality of life for individuals. A thriving society considers well-being, education, healthcare, and happines, not just sheer numbers.

True. But quantity is important. In fact, I would argue that it's the most important factor. More important than diversity at least.

I don't need to "prove" the superiority of my view, as the inherent worth and dignity of all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, is a fundamental human rights principle. The burden of proof lies with those who seek to justify discrimination and marginalization. So go ahead and tell us how you can justify the harm caused by discriminatory beliefs, and how you propose we reconcile your beliefs with the principles of equality and human rights?



Many of those debates are about how to best uphold and protect human rights, not whether they exist or matter. Just because they are debated in parliaments doesn't mean they're up for negotiation. The universality of human rights is a fundamental principle, and their protection is a duty, not a choice.

Strongly disagree. The burden of proof lies with those who want us to accept something that the vast majority of the population finds repulsive.
No one is denying anyone any rights.

You see, I'm really not impressed by your attempts to cloak your close-mindedness in a veneer of rationality. It's like - how did you put it again? - oh yeah.... putting lipstick on a pig. And trust me, your brand of logic and common sense is about as convincing as a toddler trying to negotiate a hostage situation. I will say though, that I'm enjoying the spectacle of you trying to outsmart your own cognitive biases.



This constant reliance on pejoratives like "woke" only serves to expose the hollowness of your argument. If you can't engage with the ideas, at least try to engage with the people. Otherwise, you're just a relic shouting into the void, wondering why nobody is listening.

No substance here. You get points for style though. 🆒
By the way, here's a Harvard article on the science of attraction. It's basically biochemistry 😜

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/love-actually-science-behind-lust-attraction-companionship/

Justkatty:
If you're a responsible father, it will surely favour you
Na irresponsible men na dey hear am for old age.

Not true. Kids tend to gravitate towards their mum, since she's the one caring for them while the man is grinding to provide for the family.
The time spent away usually does not afford him the opportunity to know and bond with the kids.
The trending advice now is that as much as possible, men should try to live and plan for themselves.

Elsueno:
Omoh....this little Bastard don grow u fa. it was like yesterday when he was born sha.

Anyways, I have a fitting surname for him 'SNOW'


Since we don't even know his papa & d bros probably no wan claim am


😮‍💨😮‍💨

Lol
Why na bros?

Juoflife1:
She get time to reply. She should have flashed the middle finger

I don't think she in particular gets to enjoy the privilege of giving the middle finger. She became famous and rich poking her nose into other people personal affairs. It's only fair that she gets a little dose of her medicine from time to time.

Orinechi:
Always blaming others as usual. What's the essence of a private tape when boy friend is always available to give it to her anytime,any day? She knew the tape was going to be leaked to people. Stop making excuses for her. Any action most have result and that was the result of her action.

She made a tape for her personal consumption. She had that right. Uploading it to the Internet is a criminal offence in working countries. If you don't get it, there's no need wasting my time.

Orinechi:
How many of them have their sextape leaked?

She made a private tape and someone betrayed her trust by leaking it. You think she has done wrong and should be punished because...?

Max24:
You never see am?

There is/was no such video. Stopping making things up.

Orinechi:
would u employ her in ur company?

I don't understand. Why would she be unemployable?
People who work in your company don't have sex?

Max24:
I don't understand what you wrote. Are you saying she does not have common sense because her sex video leaked? When Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinsky sex video leaked does it mean he does not have common sense or you just like stereotyping women? Fyi, it can happen to anyone, and when it comes to sex no-one is holy including the G.O. It's a natural human urge.

Haba bros, which video be that?

OboOlora:
If she like make she go Harvard go do MSc in Public Health and discover the cure for Cancer, her life is forever ruined.

Internet never forgets!

Like Kim Kardashian's life was forever ruined abi? Dey play.

JessicaRabbit:
I didn't introduce any strawman. I only just highlighted the flaws in your reductionist thinking. Pay close attention. You're the one who implied that certain human experiences must be justified by a specific gene or biological process, and I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of that expectation. And to answer your question: No. One doesn't need to be sexual to be creative, to love, or to explore consciousness, but to suggest that sexuality is somehow divorced from these fundamental aspects of our humanity is ridiculously naive. What I see here is you trying to sever the intrinsic links between human experiences, as if sexuality exists in a vacuum, disconnected from the very essence of our humanity, when in fact it is an integral part of our emotional, social, and cognitive experiences. You can't neatly compartmentalize human nature into discrete, unrelated boxes.

A straw man is an attempt to introduce and refute a weaker or non-existent argument while ignoring the main issue of concern. In this case, your trying to connect homosexuality with creativity, consciousness, and love, as if they are not all mutually exclusive concepts.
Actually, sexuality exists in a vacuum. It doesn't have to be connected to anything. That's why sex for money is possible. Some animals only have sex during specific mating periods. No connection whatsoever with love or any other emotion. Just a standalone event.

For rhetorical sake, I will emphasize again that your attempts to delegitimize homosexuality by framing it as "unnatural" is EXACTLY what has been used to justify discrimination and oppression throughout history, and I won't let that harmful narrative go unchallenged.

Once again, nature is purposeful. Homosexuality serves no purpose. Hence, not natural. I would stop calling it unnatural if you can explain what purpose it serves. Other than our collective degradation, that is.

I find it very convenient that you can dismiss love and creativity on one hand as abstract concepts when they don't fit your narrative, and yet you expect sexual attraction to be reduced to a single biological process. A bare faced cop-out if I've ever seen one. So we haven't found a "gay gene". Okay! So flipping what? How is this conclusive proof for you that same-sex attraction can't be a natural part of human diversity? Do I need to remind you that our understanding of human biology is still evolving? And what about the numerous scientific studies that have found evidence of same-sex behavior in various animal species? Are you saying that they are all just deviant outliers?

Na wa o. Are love and creativity not abstract concepts? Even though we know they are real, they are intangible, no?
Yes. Sexual attraction is a simple biological process. We understand the biochemical interplay of pheromones and neurotransmitters that mediate sexual attraction. It can be hacked. Surely you know this.
@bold
Now you're getting it.

LOL, what?! Are you taking the piss?

Do you seriously believe that the value of a relationship lies solely in its sexual aspects? Love, companionship, and emotional support are not just mere add-ons to your defining marker of sex. They ARE the very foundations upon which meaningful relationships are built! I shouldn't have to be pointing out these obvious banalities for crying out loud.

@bold: I'm not sure how you were able to draw that out from my comments.
I am saying that any relationship can have all these (companionship, love, emotional support) without sex. However, a homosexual relationship does not exist without sex. See where I'm going?

By the way, I suppose you're implying that same-sex attraction is somehow artificial or forced, when you use the term "unnatural urges"? Have you ever stopped to consider that sexuality actually exists on a spectrum, and that human experience is far more nuanced than your binary thinking allows? The only thing "unnatural" I can observe here is your absolute dictatorship over what constitutes a legitimate relationship based on your own personal biases and prejudices.

What spectrum? LGBTQIA+? I laugh. Or is there something backed by real science that you want to share?
The human experience is nuanced I agree. But sexual desire is not. It's the pursuit of dopamine. Even rats have the same experience. Go figure.
I don't have prejudices. I follow science, logic, and common sense. It's you who wants to be woke.

And this is exactly where you're getting tangled in your own biological binary because, for some reason, you find it hard to tell the difference between the origin of our instincts and the entirety of human experience. Our bodies may be wired for reproduction. That much is true. However, our minds and hearts are capable of so much more. You're acting as if our free will as human beings, in tandem with our diverse personalities and emotional complexities, plays absolutely no role in human connection, and that is where you sound like a true reductionist. That being said, I couldn't help but notice that in a hilarious twist of irony, you went ahead to make the same point I was trying to make when you made that comment about enjoying intellectual fireworks with friends: We can and do experience deep connections with others beyond just sexual attraction! So why must we diminish the validity of same-sex relationships just because they don't fit into your narrow definition of biological imperatives?

Again. The origins of our sexual instincts are biological. Even animal experience these same instincts. Portions of the human brain can be stimulated with electrodes to achieve orgasm, the endpoint of sexual congress. No need to romanticize anything. It's not my definition, it's science.

Whilst you "color inside the lines", please note that you're actively ignoring the loving families that exist despite your disapproval, as well as the scientific consensus that sexual diversity is a natural part of human experience. You'd be better off embracing the beauty of diversity than trying to fit everyone into your narrow, monochrome vision.

If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.

It's pretty basic actually. First of all, your use of the term "homosexual community" is an example of the slippery slope fallacy, suggesting that if one event occurs, it will inevitably lead to a series of extreme consequences without providing evidence for such a chain of events. Recall that there are individuals who still identify as bisexual or queer, allowing for potential reproduction. Like I said earlier, human sexuality exists on a spectrum. Furthermore, assisted reproductive technologies like surrogacy, in vitro fertilization, and sperm/egg donation already exist and could continue to evolve, in tandem with adoption and foster care which remain viable options for building families. And that's not even factoring human ingenuity and adaptability. As a species, we've come a really long way since the Stone Ages. Most of the things we've accomplished now would have been considered near impossible then. In years to come, we could potentially discover new solutions and innovations in reproductive technology.

All of these prove that homosexual relationships are of no value to the human race. Innovative solutions that would make two people of the same gender give birth? Yeah sure.

That's because you missed the point. The penguins' ability to raise a chick together, regardless of its origin, shows that they're capable of exhibiting parental care without regard to gender. It's a testament to the flexibility of nature, and a reminder that love and family come in many forms. Plus, in the wild, many species of birds and mammals have been observed engaging in same-sex behaviors. So yes, evolution has a more vibrant and diverse palette than your imagination.

Sorry. Love and family do not come in many forms. At the basic level, it's father, mother, and children.

Well, I consider being wilfully ignorant to be unnatural, but here you are. As for my submissions, I wouldn't call it "wokism", just a lack of tolerance for intolerance.

I'm not intolerant. I go where the science goes.

One is a consensual relationship between adults and the other is a non-consensual and harmful act against minors. I don't see how they are comparable at all. The survival of the human species is not dependent on individual sexual orientation, as people of all orientations can still contribute to society in various ways.

Actually it does. The human race is already in real danger of population collapse. Birth rates are falling in the developed world. Homosexuality doesn't help at all.

Labeling someone as a homophobe or transphobe is not an attack, but rather a description of their behavior when they express discriminatory sentiments towards marginalized groups. You need to recognize that everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions, but when those beliefs perpetuate harm and discrimination, they must be addressed.

No, it's virtue signalling unless you show the superiority of your view, or the inferiority of their own, which you haven't.

Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but the world doesn't revolve around your personal preferences. Human rights are not up for debate, and neither is the inherent worth and dignity of every individual, regardless of their sexual orientation.

I know. However, human rights are debated all the time in parliaments across the world. Don't know what you are talking about.

How brave of you to hide behind a facade of faux confidence while casually dismissing ideologies you don't agree with as "wokist". Your intolerance is showing, and it's not a good look for you.

You really love big words. It's not an ideology. It's a view founded on science, logic, common sense, and a healthy sense of human decency.

Your virtue signalling is showing. It's probably a good look in this woke generation.

JessicaRabbit:
"The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."
- Audre Lorde

The problem here is that your reductionist thinking is actively preventing you from truly embracing the complexity and diversity of human experience. Whether the "gay gene" exists or not, it is still completely irrelevant and a blatant red herring in this conversation. And are you really suggesting that the only things that are natural and valid are those that can be reduced to a single gene or biological process? If so, then what about love, creativity, or consciousness? Can you pinpoint a single "love gene" or "creativity gene"? Do you really expect me to believe that human emotions, desires, and attractions must be justified by some sort of rational calculus? Is it really so difficult for you to acknowledge that human sexuality is a rich, multifaceted, and beautiful aspect of our humanity? It would do you plenty of good to realize that the very concept of "natural" is often used to justify discrimination and oppression. What's natural is not always what's right. And what's rational is not always what's human.

Homexuality is sexual behaviour between people of the same gender. Love, creativity, consciousness and similar phenomena are abstract concepts that can exist without this behaviour. You are smartly introducing a straw man argument by connecting any of these concepts to homosexual behaviour. Do you need to be sexual to be creative, to love, or to explore consciousness?
By saying there is no gay gene, I'm saying there is no biological rationale for same-sex behaviour. And yes, I am also saying that something that is physical like sexual attraction or desire can be reduced to a biological process. Once again, love and creativity are abstract concepts -- apples and oranges.

Interesting. For a second there I thought we were discussing grown-up concepts like love, commitment, and basic human rights. But apparently, we need to circle back to Relationship 101. The value of same-sex relationships, my dear, is the same as any other relationship: companionship and emotional support. Shocking, right?

Companionship, emotional support, and love can be enjoyed in a relationship between a mother and her child, two good friends, a teacher and a student etc. None of this involves or requires any sexual attraction or behavior.
Sex is the defining marker of gay relationships. Invoking love and emotional support is an attempt to give legitimacy to unnatural urges.

If you reduce human connection to a mere baby-making machine, then romance novels are about as thrilling as reading the appliance manual. Nobody is denying the role evolution plays. Of course we're all wired to seek out mates, but it isn't just physical compatibility we look out for when we're searching for mates. We also crave intellectual fireworks, shared values, and a good laugh once in a while.

Red herring alert!
Biologically speaking, the ultimate goal of what you refer to as human connection is procreation. I'm not reducing anything. The science is clear. Intellectual fireworks, shared values and a good laugh are possible without gay sex. Don't you enjoy these things with your friends?

Plenty of same-sex couples raise families through adoption or fostering, or have you never heard of uncles who raise their nieces and nephews, or the deep bonds of chosen families? Evolution may nudge us in a certain direction, but it doesn't necessarily dictate our destination. We humans, with our glorious free will, get to color outside the lines.

Same-sex couples raising families does not prove anything. It only means that deviant behaviour is becoming mainstream. We must color those lines properly, else our collective future will be at risk.

The ability of a community to thrive and survive in any species is dependent on factors beyond just individual advantages. Cooperation, mutual support, and social bonding are essential for the survival of communities. Evolution isn't just an individualistic process.

I don't see how this helps your argument. A homosexual community cannot reproduce. How will it survive?

Having a laugh? Hardly.

Perhaps you haven't heard the one about the gay penguins who raise abandoned chicks? Evolution has a wilder sense of humor than you think.

They hatched an egg that was given to them by the zookeepers. Doesn't sound like evolution to me.

You're just letting yourself get carried away by hyperbole here. Conflating sexual diversity with non-consensual behaviors is a misguided and harmful equivalence. Sexual diversity refers to the natural range of human sexual orientations and gender identities, including being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, and others. These identities are a normal and healthy part of human experience, and deserve respect, recognition, and protection.

There's nothing normal or healthy about any of this behaviour. What is normal about being transgender? Na wa o. Wokism. 😀

Then on the other hand, you've got pedophilia and bestiality: harmful and non-consensual behaviors that exploit and harm vulnerable individuals, which are rightly rejected by society. There is a clear distinction here.

There's a distinction quite alright, but it's far from clear. They are all sexual inclinations that do nothing for our collective survival or advancement.

I don't quite understand the bit about pride marches and rainbow flags. These are symbols of pride and resilience for a community that has faced historical discrimination and marginalization. All they are seeking is acceptance and inclusivity. How are they attacking anyone's values or beliefs?

Tagging me a homophobe, transphobe, or intolerant because I disagree with your sexual proclivities on the grounds of faith, cultural ideals, or common sense is not an attack on my values or belief?

Don't worry, I'm sure your fragile worldview can handle a few basic human rights discussions. Maybe take a deep breath and try again.

It's not just about human rights no matter how much you want to paint it so, it's about sanctity, values, morals, decency, and the battle against depravity.
My worldview is far from fragile, I just enjoy calling out wokist crap.

JessicaRabbit:
How does the existence or non-existence of a "gay gene" make homosexuality any less natural or valid?

It means there's no natural, biological, or rational reason to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex.

I don't see how it is relevant to the legitimacy and value of same-sex relationships.

I'm curious. What is the value of same-sex relationships?

Human attraction and love are complex phenomena that cannot be reduced to simple genetic determinism.

It's not complex at all. The ultimate goal of attraction is procreation and perpetuation of any species, something homosexuality cannot accomplish.

Evolution isn't just about individual advantages. It's also about the survival and thriving of communities.

True. How does two people of the same-sex going at it help achieve this?

What if the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality lies in its ability to promote diversity, creativity, and social cohesion... which are actually all essential for the progress and flourishing of our species?

Surely you're having a laugh.

Sexual diversity is a natural part of the human experience, and pathologizing it will accomplish nothing other than the further stigmatization and marginalization of already vulnerable communities. Don't you think they have it bad enough already?

What is sexual diversity and where do we draw the line? Pedophilia, bestiality, etc. At what point is it enough or do you permit of forms of sexual deviation in the name of being tolerant and accepting?
Should we accept a way of life that assaults our sense of virtue, faith, family values, and everything we hold sacred because we don't want to be seen as intolerant?
Gay people would probably not have much trouble if they kept their unnatural urges to themselves. But it's them who go on pride marches and wave rainbows in our faces isn't it?

With all due respect, your stance reeks of the same fear and intolerance that has been used to justify discrimination throughout history. The only backwardness here is the refusal to acknowledge the progress of human understanding and the stubborn insistence on imposing one's own beliefs on others. Your words are not a defense of traditional values, but a thinly veiled attempt to justify discrimination, and I'll have no part in it. Instead, I'd rather stand with those who champion love, acceptance, and the human spirit in all its vibrant colors.

This part of your comment is wokist drivel. No need responding to it.