NewStats: 3,264,397 , 8,183,594 topics. Date: Tuesday, 10 June 2025 at 09:46 PM 432u13

Bashiii:


Tolerant and learn something new?

Like learning how to bare our asshole to be fu"ked by other men or learning how to f"ck other men assholes? Which other things can we learn from gays?

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.

ThothHermes:
Homosexuality serves no purpose. It's perverse. There's no gay gene.
Nature is purposeful. What evolutionary advantages does being gay confer on the human species?
People have the right to pursue their fantasies of perversion, but we must call it what it is -- perversion. Don't make it sound like those who disagree are backward or primitive.

How does the existence or non-existence of a "gay gene" make homosexuality any less natural or valid? I don't see how it is relevant to the legitimacy and value of same-sex relationships. Human attraction and love are complex phenomena that cannot be reduced to simple genetic determinism. Evolution isn't just about individual advantages. It's also about the survival and thriving of communities. 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? 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?

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.

There's nothing genetic about it. God does not create anybody gay. In fact, HE abhors homosexuality. It is not of God!

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.

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.

You must either be gay or a fan of anal. Keep ing shit till you can't hold your shit.

Bashiii:


You must either be gay or a fan of anal. Keep ing shit till you can't hold your shit.

This might come as a surprise to you, but just as I don't have to be a scientist to acknowledge the importance of science, I also don't have to be gay to recognize the inherent worth and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. But please, do go on. I'm fascinated by your attempts to outdo yourself in bigotry and potty humor. It's a remarkable display of intellectual bankruptcy.

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

"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.

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

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 . Shocking, right?

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

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. 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.

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

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

Surely you're having a laugh.

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.

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?

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. 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.

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?

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

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.

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 . Shocking, right?

Companionship, emotional , 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 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 , 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.

ThothHermes:
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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Companionship, emotional , 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 is an attempt to give legitimacy to unnatural urges

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 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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

My worldview is far from fragile, I just enjoy calling out wokist crap.

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.

sparko1:
In 2013 I made a post and cited some research materials for the above given topic. When this topic was discussed most people saw it as a debate that has no bases in Nigeria because according to most, it's something of no consequences, but over the years things have changed.

About a week ago I saw a video of guy almost linched by a group of young men in the NORTH for LOOKING/WALKING/SPEAKING IN A GIRLISH WAY LOL.

This topic is now more important than ever because though we consider this abnormal or against our religious orientation, we must agree there is something more and it deserves a thorough understanding.

Find below link to previous post: https://nairaland.macsoftware.info/1471542/being-gay-it-genetic-choice

Most people will ask why bring this back up, from experience, we have always been reactive, always trying to retrace our steps, everything from yahoo boys, to scamming, jungle justice, even kidnapping, it's until we begin to see real numbers of dead bodies or decay that we start reorientation, at which time lots of young minds are already too far gone.
I made a promise to re-evaluate the topic after 10 years.

The core of the research:
Homosexuality, “GAY” Is it Genetic or a Choice? Can the 'Choice' Be Changed?

Some research materials:
Research shows that the basic template for the body and brain of a human fetus is female in its structure. As a result men have some redundant female features such as nipples. Men also have mammary glands which do not function but retain the potential to produce milk. There are thousands of recorded cases of lactation in male prisoners of war where starvation led to a diseased liver failing to break down the hormones essential for breast-feeding.
As we now know, six to eight weeks after conception, a male fetus (XY) receives a massive dose of male hormones called androgens which first forms the testes, and then a second dose to alter the brain from a female format to a male configuration. If the male foetus does not receive enough male hormones at the appropriate time, one of two things may happen. Firstly, a baby boy may be born with a brain structure that is more feminine than masculine, in other words, a boy who will most likely be gay by puberty. Secondly, a genetic boy may be born with a fully functioning female brain and a set of male genitals. This person will be transgender.
This is a person who is biologically male but feeling as if he is a female. Sometimes a genetic male is born with a set of both male and female genitals.
Geneticist Anne Moir in her ground-breaking book Brainsex documents the many cases of genetic boys being born looking like girls and being raised as girls, only suddenly to find that they have penis and testicles that 'appear' at puberty.

Homosexuality is Part of History
Among the ancient Greeks, homosexuality was not only permitted, it was highly respected. The slim, boyish, youthful figure was their ideal of beauty, and paintings and statues were erected in its honour. Poems were written about the love that prominent older men had for young men. The Greeks believed that male homosexuality served a noble, higher purpose and it inspired youths to become worthy of the community. They also found that young gay men proved to be some of their most courageous, successful warriors as they would fight 'side-by-side in love with each other'.
In Roman times, Julius Caesar was described as 'every woman's man and every man's woman.'
When Christianity frowned on same-sex relationships and God reportedly brought his vengeance down on the City of Sodom, homosexuality was banned, disappeared into the closet and wasn't seen in public again until recently. The Victorian era refused to acknowledge that homosexuality existed and, even if it did, it must be the Devil's work and would be severely punished. As we enter the 21st Century, older generations still believe that homosexuality is a recent phenomenon and an 'unnatural' act. The reality is that it has been around for as long as male foetuses missed out on their sufficient share of male hormones.

Is it Genetic or a Choice?
When Body Language author Allan Pease and geneticist Anne Moir appeared together on British television in 1991 for the launch of their books Brainsex (Mandarin Books) and Talk Language (HarperCollins), Moir revealed the results of her research which highlighted what scientists have known for years – homosexuality is inborn, not a choice.
Not only is homosexuality mostly inborn, but the environment in which we are raised plays a lesser role in our behaviour than was previously thought. Scientists have found that as an adolescent or adult, parents' efforts to suppress homosexual tendencies in their off-spring has practically no effect. And because the impact of male hormone (or lack of it) on the brain is the main culprit, most homosexuals are males.
There is no solid evidence that upbringing affects the likelihood of a child becoming homosexual.
For every lesbian (female body with a masculinised brain) there are about eight to ten gay men. If the gay and lesbian movement was to embrace this research and, if the education system taught these findings, homosexual and transsexual people would not encounter as much prejudice. Most people are more tolerant and accepting of a person who has inborn differences than they are of a person who, in their opinion, makes an unacceptable choice. Take, for example, Thalidomide babies, Parkinson's sufferers, autism or people who have cerebral palsy. The public is more accepting of these people because they are usually born with these conditions, as opposed to homosexuals who supposedly choose their lifestyle. Can we be critical of a person who is born left handed or dyslexic? Or with blue eyes and red hair? Or with a female brain in a male body? Most homosexual people believe that their homosexuality is a choice and, like many minority groups, often use public forums to display their 'choice', which generates negative attitudes from many of the public.

Can the 'Choice' Be Changed?
Gays and lesbians do not choose their sexual orientation any more than heterosexuals do. Scientists and most human sexuality experts agree that homosexuality is an orientation that is unchangeable. Researchers believe that most homosexual orientation develops in the womb, that homosexual patterns are firmly fixed by around age five and that it is outside the control of the person. For centuries, techniques have been used to suppress homosexual feelings in 'sufferers' which have included breast amputation, castration, drug therapy, uterus removal, frontal lobotomy, psychotherapy, electric shock therapy, prayer meetings, spiritual counseling and exorcism. No therapies have ever succeeded.
The best they have been able to achieve is to make some bisexuals confine their sexual activities to of the opposite sex or force some homosexuals to become celibate through guilt or fear, and to push many others to suicide.
Scientists have shown that homosexuality is an orientation that is unalterable. It's not a choice.
There is a greater than 90% chance that you, the reader, are heterosexual. Think about how difficult it would be to feel sexually attracted to someone of your own sex and you will begin to understand how it is virtually impossible to create feelings that do not already exist. If it was a choice, as many proclaim, why would any intelligent person choose a way of life that exposes them to so much hostility, prejudice and discrimination? Hormones are responsible, not human choices.
Are we Slaves to our Biology?
Scientists know how to change the sexuality of rats and monkeys in the womb. Some groups claim that we can control our likes and dislikes by will or choice and they insist that we can all reverse park or read street directories with the same ease. But scientists know this is unrealistic. You don't need to be a scientist to see that rabbits can't fly, ducks are lousy runners, most women have difficulty reading maps and men reading newspapers are temporarily deaf. Understanding brain structure differences makes us more tolerant of each other and allows us to have greater control over our destiny and to feel positive about our inclinations and choices.
Human intelligence has evolved to a point where we are more in control of our emotions than other animals and can think through our choices. Other animals don't think: they react to circumstances and this makes them slaves to their biology. Our biology is the motivations behind many of the choices we make that sometimes don't seem to make sense to us. So while we are more in control of ourselves than most other animals, we still can't completely buck the system. The biggest obstacle facing most people is their rejection of the idea that we are just another animal with a smart brain. This refusal makes these people victims of their biology.

source.
Barbara & Allan Pease
Abstract from “why men don't listen & women can't read maps

Well long story short, there are two important question here;
1. Is it Genetic or a Choice?
If it is genetic, why do we have to criticize, force other on their sexual orientation? Isn’t that why we as humans have the right to make choice for ourselves

2. Can the 'Choice' Be Changed?
If it can’t be changed why pretend it can be changed by placing a ban on it, when in reality it can’t, instead of allowing these people live happily like every other person.

HellVictorinho6 from nairaland use to be gay..ask him..he now swap priiick for puccccci & he happier now sir!!!!((((TRUE STORY))))

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 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 ) 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.

ThothHermes:
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.

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.

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?

Once again, nature is purposeful.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

Na wa o. Are love and creativity not abstract concepts? Even though we know they are real, they are intangible, no?

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.

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.

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?

Now you're getting it.

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

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.

What spectrum? LGBTQIA+? I laugh. Or is there something backed by real science that you want to share?

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 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.

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?

I don't have prejudices. I follow science, logic, and common sense. It's you who wants to be woke.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

None of the above..it's demonic..only fasting and prayers with strong deliverance ministers can cast these spirits into pigs...

@JessicaRabbit,

I don't like discussing this topic, it's very disgusting to me. However, I want to ask you a question.

Since you are vigorously defending homosexuality, will you also defend incest? Will you defend a man and his adult daughter having a consensual sexual relationship openly and telling us to accept it? after all, all the argument you are making for homosexuality can also apply to them too. It is the same "human experience" and they deserve to be accepted too according to your argument. Mind you if you don't accept and celebrate these ones you are also a hater too.

At what point are we going to draw the line on moral decency? If you accept one unnatural nonsense in the name of human experience and human right, you also have to accept everything no matter how ridiculous it is. So where does that leave the society?

Kenn55:
@Jessica.Rabbit,

I don't like discussing this topic, it's very disgusting to me. However, I want to ask you a question.

Since you are vigorously defending homosexuality, will you also defend incest? Will you defend a man and his adult daughter having a consensual sexual relationship openly and telling us to accept it? after all, all the argument you are making for homosexuality can also apply to them too. It is the same "human experience" and they deserve to be accepted too according to your argument. Mind you if you don't accept and celebrate these ones you are also a hater too.

At what point are we going to draw the line on moral decency? If you accept one unnatural nonsense in the name of human experience and human right, you also have to accept everything no matter how ridiculous it is. So where does that leave the society?

Thanks for letting us know what makes you squirm. Disgust is an interesting human emotion, but it shouldn't be the sole com for morality.

Believe it or not, I've pondered these questions you just asked, way back then. If you've been reading my posts on this topic, you'd have picked up on something very important. But just in case you haven't, I don't mind spelling it out again: Love is messy. Attraction is unpredictable. There are always going to be curve balls involved, and you can't dodge all of them. Homosexuality is a natural variation in human sexuality, not some "unnatural nonsense". It's like having brown eyes instead of blue. It just is.

As for incest? That's entirely different. Family relationships have power differentials baked in: parent/child, older sibling/younger sibling -- bonds of trust and mutual care and that can be exploited in the context of a sexual relationship. This significantly complicates consent, and makes incestuous relationships far more likely to be abusive than relationships between unrelated partners. The presence of an instinctive sexual aversion to close relatives (see the Westermarck effect) also suggests that incest often involves coercion and abuse.

None of these issues apply to same-sex relationships; objectively, same-sex relationships have no more in common with incest than opposite-sex ones. You might as well have asked why allowing German couples to have sex doesn't justify incest. It's a non-sequitur, and, I believe, really just an excuse to express revulsion for gay people -- thinly-veiled as an ethical question.

JessicaRabbit:


Thanks for letting us know what makes you squirm. Disgust is an interesting human emotion, but it shouldn't be the sole com for morality.

What would you say should be the yardstick(s) for judging what behaviours should be accepted and tolerated in a civilised human society? How do we know when a behaviour crosses the line ?

Believe it or not, I've pondered these questions you just asked, way back then. If you've been reading my posts on this topic, you'd have picked up on something very important. But just in case you haven't, I don't mind spelling it out again: Love is messy. Attraction is unpredictable. There are always going to be curve balls involved, and you can't dodge all of them. Homosexuality is a natural variation in human sexuality, not some "unnatural nonsense". It's like having brown eyes instead of blue. It just is.

Granted that homosexuality is a natural variation, but does this necessarily make it okay or good ? I don't think there's need for me to give you examples of natural variations that are obviously bad. So how do we tell that homosexuality is a good natural variation rather than a defect, a disorder that needs to be cured.

As for incest? That's entirely different. Family relationships have power differentials baked in: parent/child, older sibling/younger sibling -- bonds of trust and mutual care and that can be exploited in the context of a sexual relationship. This significantly complicates consent, and makes incestuous relationships far more likely to be abusive than relationships between unrelated partners. The presence of an instinctive sexual aversion to close relatives (see the Westermarck effect) also suggests that incest often involves coercion and abuse.

If the sexual relationship between two close relatives is consensual, would that be fine ? On what basis really should incest be condemned ?

None of these issues apply to same-sex relationships; objectively, same-sex relationships have no more in common with incest than opposite-sex ones. You might as well have asked why allowing German couples to have sex doesn't justify incest. It's a non-sequitur, and, I believe, really just an excuse to express revulsion for gay people -- thinly-veiled as an ethical question.

Does it surprise you that many people find homosexuality detestable ?

AlbertNewton:


What would you say should be the yardstick(s) for judging what behaviours should be accepted and tolerated in a civilised human society? How do we know when a behaviour crosses the line ?

It's quite simple, actually. All you need is empathy and reason. The only way we can truly promote inclusivity is by understanding the experiences and perspectives of other people, as well as critically evaluating the impact of actions and behaviors, separating the harmful from the harmless. As for how I determine when a behavior crosses the line, I posit that these are the most important questions to answer: (1) Does the behavior cause significant harm to individuals or groups, either physically, emotionally, or psychologically? (2) Are all the parties involved in the behavior consenting adults, capable of making informed decisions about their own lives and bodies?, and (3) Is there any way in which this behavior violates the unwritten rules of social cooperation, undermining trust, respect, and the common good?

Granted that homosexuality is a natural variation, but does this necessarily make it okay or good ? I don't think there's need for me to give you examples of natural variations that are obviously bad. So how do we tell that homosexuality is a good natural variation rather than a defect, a disorder that needs to be cured.

Do you propose that we must condemn every natural phenomenon that doesn't fit our narrow moral mold? Should we start "curing" people of their tendency towards anger or greed, since those are natural human emotions that can lead to harmful behavior? The only defect that exists here is the one in our understanding and acceptance of human diversity. Homosexuality has been a natural part of human experience since forever, so I don't see how it's reasonable to term it as a defect.

If the sexual relationship between two close relatives is consensual, would that be fine ? On what basis really should incest be condemned ?

You've only just come out to repeat the same question the other guy asked, so I will invite you to go back and read my previous post more carefully. But for what it is worth, I whatever consenting adults choose to do, as long as it doesn't hurt others. Ultimately, it's none of my business. Although, incest is one of those situations where there can be complications, both emotionally and genetically if there is a child.

Does it surprise you that many people find homosexuality detestable ?

Detestable is a telling choice of words, and it implies a moral judgment, or a value statement. And that's exactly the issue here. While individuals are free to hold their own personal beliefs and values, we must distinguish between personal opinions and objective human rights. The fact that many people may find homosexuality detestable does not justify discrimination, prejudice, or denial of fundamental rights. We've been down this road before, and history has shown us that moral condemnation and persecution of minority groups is a dangerous and harmful path.

JessicaRabbit:


It's quite simple, actually. All you need is empathy and reason. The only way we can truly promote inclusivity is by understanding the experiences and perspectives of other people, as well as critically evaluating the impact of actions and behaviors, separating the harmful from the harmless. As for how I determine when a behavior crosses the line, I posit that these are the most important questions to answer: (1) Does the behavior cause significant harm to individuals or groups, either physically, emotionally, or psychologically? (2) Are all the parties involved in the behavior consenting adults, capable of making informed decisions about their own lives and bodies?, and (3) Is there any way in which this behavior violates the unwritten rules of social cooperation, undermining trust, respect, and the common good?



Do you propose that we must condemn every natural phenomenon that doesn't fit our narrow moral mold? Should we start "curing" people of their tendency towards anger or greed, since those are natural human emotions that can lead to harmful behavior? The only defect that exists here is the one in our understanding and acceptance of human diversity. Homosexuality has been a natural part of human experience since forever, so I don't see how it's reasonable to term it as a defect.



You've only just come out to repeat the same question the other guy asked, so I will invite you to go back and read my previous post more carefully. But for what it is worth, I whatever consenting adults choose to do, as long as it doesn't hurt others. Ultimately, it's none of my business. Although, incest is one of those situations where there can be complications, both emotionally and genetically if there is a child.



Detestable is a telling choice of words, and it implies a moral judgment, or a value statement. And that's exactly the issue here. While individuals are free to hold their own personal beliefs and values, we must distinguish between personal opinions and objective human rights. The fact that many people may find homosexuality detestable does not justify discrimination, prejudice, or denial of fundamental rights. We've been down this road before, and history has shown us that moral condemnation and persecution of minority groups is a dangerous and harmful path.

For what it's worth, my questions were simply to help me understand the rationale and reason for your of homosexuality clearly. And in particular, the questions you posited as the three most important to ask to determine when a behaviour crosses the line really helped me understand your position thoroughly and properly. Your answers to my other questions could be predicted easily based on these.

However, while I find your defence of homosexuality very rational and reasonable, it's still a bit hard for me to empathize with homosexuals (and I will say that I'm very empathetic normally). Even though I am irreligious, I still feel there's something wrong (maybe not harmful) about two people of the same sex fücking. I see homosexuals as probably suffering from some sort of sexual/psychological disorder.

AlbertNewton:


For what it's worth, my questions were simply to help me understand the rationale and reason for your of homosexuality clearly. And in particular, the questions you posited as the three most important to ask to determine when a behaviour crosses the line really helped me understand your position thoroughly and properly. Your answers to my other questions could be predicted easily based on these.

However, while I find your defence of homosexuality very rational and reasonable, it's still a bit hard for me to empathize with homosexuals (and I will say that I'm very empathetic normally). Even though I am irreligious, I still feel there's something wrong (maybe not harmful) about two people of the same sex fücking. I see homosexuals as probably suffering from some sort of sexual/psychological disorder.

The World Health Organization, as well as numerous psychological and medical professionals have all acknowledged that homosexuality is not a mental disorder or illness. I understand your concerns, but you clearly still have a lot to learn about the difference between personal discomfort and objective harm. You obviously feel some type of way about same-sex relationships, and that's fine. But what you need to realize is that they do not cause any harm to others. Conversely, discrimination and prejudice against homosexuals can lead to significant harm, both mentally and physically. Like I said, empathy is about understanding and sharing the feelings of others, even if we don't fully comprehend their experiences.

JessicaRabbit:


It's quite simple, actually. All you need is empathy and reason. The only way we can truly promote inclusivity is by understanding the experiences and perspectives of other people, as well as critically evaluating the impact of actions and behaviors, separating the harmful from the harmless. As for how I determine when a behavior crosses the line, I posit that these are the most important questions to answer: (1) Does the behavior cause significant harm to individuals or groups, either physically, emotionally, or psychologically? (2) Are all the parties involved in the behavior consenting adults, capable of making informed decisions about their own lives and bodies?, and (3) Is there any way in which this behavior violates the unwritten rules of social cooperation, undermining trust, respect, and the common good?



Do you propose that we must condemn every natural phenomenon that doesn't fit our narrow moral mold? Should we start "curing" people of their tendency towards anger or greed, since those are natural human emotions that can lead to harmful behavior? The only defect that exists here is the one in our understanding and acceptance of human diversity. Homosexuality has been a natural part of human experience since forever, so I don't see how it's reasonable to term it as a defect.



You've only just come out to repeat the same question the other guy asked, so I will invite you to go back and read my previous post more carefully. But for what it is worth, I whatever consenting adults choose to do, as long as it doesn't hurt others. Ultimately, it's none of my business. Although, incest is one of those situations where there can be complications, both emotionally and genetically if there is a child.



Detestable is a telling choice of words, and it implies a moral judgment, or a value statement. And that's exactly the issue here. While individuals are free to hold their own personal beliefs and values, we must distinguish between personal opinions and objective human rights. The fact that many people may find homosexuality detestable does not justify discrimination, prejudice, or denial of fundamental rights. We've been down this road before, and history has shown us that moral condemnation and persecution of minority groups is a dangerous and harmful path.

What did I just read? You incest. I'm not surprised, it will be hypocritical of you not to it. The same logic you used to homo applies to every unnatural nonsense out there. I hope you will be very proud when your own brothers marry each other or when your father and sister have sexual relationship after all they are not harming anyone. In your world, there is no boundary to human morality, everything goes as long as you are not hurting anyone

It used to be LGB, before you know it they added T and then Q then 2S etc. In fact, the community is growing at alarming pace. In the next 20 years man and animal relationships etc will be officially added and recognized and you will have to it because there is no boundary to morality anymore.

Btw, I'm not advocating for harming or discriminating against them after all, it may not be their fault that they are that way. However, we all need to acknowledge that this is unnatural and wrong and people in that category need help instead of ing nonsense. Now, see how you ended up ing incest. Deep down in your mind, you know it's wrong but you have to it in other to justify for homosexuality. You can't accept one and not accept another

How can I unread what I just read? I feel like vomiting right now.

TheWinterBird:
There's nothing genetic about it. God does not create anybody gay. In fact, HE abhors homosexuality. It is not of God!

So you feel God created transgender but somehow it's inconceivable to think they were created by God.

The question you fail to understand is, how did you come to feel how you feel about the opposite sex? Was it learned or is it generic, if it is generic then what make you so sure others are not generic.

MrCork:



HellVictorinho6 from nairaland use to be gay..ask him..he now swap priiick for puccccci & he happier now sir!!!!((((TRUE STORY))))

This approach speaks to your character, a discussion doesn't necessarily have to come about as a personal experience, this may look inconceivable at the moment in Nigeria, in another 10 years, we will revisit.

advanceDNA:


Difficult for who?? U guys like making storm out of tea cup....
U are the ones making it difficult.... How many times u see an heterosexual person announcing he's heterosexual.... announcing he's coming out...??
Sex is a private issue ....if y'all gay folks treat it as private, there will be no need for all these seeking validation by linking wateva u do behind close doors with genetics, whether animals in the bush do it or not, etc....

I mean... look at us.. humans with advanced cognitive function...we build planes and communicate from millions of miles away..yet we are seeking validation of our life style from animals in the bush operating at adrenal or survival cortex level ...it's pathetic....

Allow daht op, these kind of persons are always looking 4 validation. He was saying he's not gay but we all knw their type, if he wants to comeout he should do with his full chest nd no one is going to harm him.

Vlyrics:
LoL... Gay sex is fu..cking fun. If di. Cck never enter you, you don't know what you are missing. Or when you mess your boss and he is mo.aning and begging you to stop, such power!

Again, genetically, guys are better looking than ladies. They are taller, broad shoulders, deep baritone voice, chest, thigh, etc. I no know waiting una dey see for girls. I fu.cked a girl once and I didn't like it, I couldn't go all in, or use the energy I wanted to. She was just saying I'm fuc. king as if I'm raping her, but with a guy I can bang with much more energy.

Finally, bussy is better than pu.ssy. With these few points of mine, I conclude that do you, let me do me.

You're possessed bro...l swear.... what's the fun in dick tearing ur small anus...shitting sometimes is real agony when the shit is so strong...talk more of dick going into my ass non stop!!!! Is that not terribly painful for u people....some of ur anuses even bleed after such...God forbid bad thing!!!
Even if you give me 10 million dollars to open my ass for you to drill...l will never accept!!! Cus l will be enjoying the money and crying inside Everytime l what l subjected myself to!!!
How can you look ur fellow men in the eyes and speak when they're speaking when you take dick on a steady... you're no longer a man na... you're a woman... infact you're less than a woman!!! Cus most women don't even allow anal sex!!!
God forbid oo...gays have disturbed me all my life for my good looks...one was a very rich Dean of faculty and priest back in my uni days...but the way l run from them eh...how can you even get an erection...talkmore of suistaining it when ur fellow man undresses? What are going to see to make your blood rise? The same dick and dry ass you have too?
Tufiakwa!!!
SMH

you as a Nigerian living in here does Nigeria look like a place that orientation could happen but every blessed day more of them are coming out which means theyve been here its just SM that has made ppl more aware of them

NSK4U:
It's indoctrination..... Don't think anyone was borne gay. The environment influence most into it

Robertgreene1:


You're possessed bro...l swear.... what's the fun in dick tearing ur small anus...shitting sometimes is real agony when the shit is so strong...talk more of dick going into my ass non stop!!!! Is that not terribly painful for u people....some of ur anuses even bleed after such...God forbid bad thing!!!
Even if you give me 10 million dollars to open my ass for you to drill...l will never accept!!! Cus l will be enjoying the money and crying inside Everytime l what l subjected myself to!!!
How can you look ur fellow men in the eyes and speak when they're speaking when you take dick on a steady... you're no longer a man na... you're a woman... infact you're less than a woman!!! Cus most women don't even allow anal sex!!!
God forbid oo...gays have disturbed me all my life for my good looks...one was a very rich Dean of faculty and priest back in my uni days...but the way l run from them eh...how can you even get an erection...talkmore of suistaining it when ur fellow man undresses? What are going to see to make your blood rise? The same dick and dry ass you have too?
Tufiakwa!!!
SMH

You are confusing pleasure with pain. Let's leave it at that

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"?

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 .

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/

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.

Swaelyf:
you as a Nigerian living in here does Nigeria look like a place that orientation could happen but every blessed day more of them are coming out which means theyve been here its just SM that has made ppl more aware of them

Yes, we have been in Nigeria but are not disconnected from the lifestyle/culture of the rest of the world around us. The role of the media contributes greatly to how we perceive and accept or reject things most times. Many Nigerians as you would know watch porn where these things are promoted and they get influenced to begin to try it out among peers. Is MouthAction an African thing? Is it not pervading and thriving today like the missionary which we were used to It's media influence among others

Zairee:
Wow

I was also impressed

bandseeker:
Nigeria is a very conservative country which is heavily steeped in religion. This is why our society is intensely homophobic.

Most of the hatred stems from the ignorance and hatred which is propagated by religious leaders all over the country.

Homophobic rhetoric is drilled into the minds of young children right from the moment they can speak and understand words.

I've observed this first hand. I live in a typical 'face me, I slap you' neighborhood. My neighbours collectively happen to have a lot of children, all of them ranging from ages 6 to 13.

They all come out in the late afternoon everyday to play after school.

There's this kid that particularly piqued my interest (Let's call him Miracle)
Miracle is the kind of child you would call "different" He is rather effeminate in nature, but he is very intelligent and speaks with an air of quiet authority.

A lot of his mates constantly make fun of the boy because he's "girly"
At first, it was just light teasing, but over time, it has escalated into much more aggressive and straight up bullying. They constantly call him names like "woman wrapper" and "homo"

I can't help but feel sad for the kid. To make matters worse, his father is a violent jerk who constantly beats him up, perhaps to "straighten" his son. The kid is always downcast and appears much more quiet than usual. The sparkle in his eyes is fading.

All of this shit will accumulate and will intensely screw the kid up by the time he's a young adult. I don't want to intervene before my neighbours take it the wrong way.

The Nigerian society has failed Miracle. Instead of teaching our children to love and respect others who are "different" from us, we continue to sew the seeds of violence in their young hearts, and we keep the cycle of hatred going.

Nigerians generally fear what they do not understand. We should learn to live and let live.

Let us break the cycle.

The problem is, he may just be introverted and not gay but the very simple reason that he is different may screw him up for life, this is why we need to reorientate the young minds, being bullish and extroverted is not a trait that every child possess.

It's so bad that even as an adult male, if you say you don't have a girlfriend for over a period of time say 2 years people begin to suspect, it's possible I am having this to concentrate on.