NewStats: 3,265,077 , 8,185,588 topics. Date: Friday, 13 June 2025 at 11:46 AM 2i4n1b

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

The truth is many married men and women are but have to hide because they know the implication, so many things are happening in Nigeria.

When I came up with this topic lots of people accused me of being gay, but there's another reason why I am concerned enough to investigate this.

The fact that it's present in our kind of society makes it very unlikely a product of indoctrination, people won't even talk about it in a forum like Nairaland where you can hide your identity, where exactly do you get indoctrinated.

advanceDNA:


shebi u claim u are heterosexual...can u fvck a woman without erection...can ur dick stand without being moved by the person u want to fvck...so how can a gay man that claims he's attracted to a man, press boóbi and get his dîck up to fvck a woman with curvy assss...??


Lol....What's ur point here sir??....anal sex, mouth sex, bóób sex, hand sex, wateva sex ....what has that gat to with being gay....
.....gay pple kiss each other right?? So if a man kiss a woman, he has done gay fóreplay ?? Man ....you don't have point here...


if its in built...how is it inbuilt for bisexual, for pple who fvck animals, pple attracted to children ?? Care to explain that??
See.....what's natural and inbuilt is man and woman sex... becos its nature's design for species continuity...and that's why a gay man can fvck a woman any day........which is also whats obtainable in the jungle where no one teaches animals them how to procreate and life continues........every other thing like sex with animals, children, man with man, woman with woman is just lust, ignited from environment triggers...



U can choose not to act out all desires...

The first thing you need to understand is there is a difference between desire and mental disorders.

Just like the difference between a man and everyone else is not just clothes but how they interact with humans.

In Nigeria a 45 year old man can marry a 14 years old girl, that should be a crime but for some reason if he has permission from the parents it's fine but we all know it's abnormal, the girls doesn't have a choice because she's not old enough.

The difference here is first both are adults of legal age, two no one is being taken advantage of (can you ask an animal for permission, do they have legal age, can they refuse such advance)

just having sex with a woman is not enough, she has to agree, if she's not in agreement ITS RAPE, just because you have the impulse to sleep with someone doesn't make it right.

sparko1:


The first thing you need to understand is there is a difference between desire and mental disorders.

Just like the difference between a man and everyone else is not just clothes but how they interact with humans.

In Nigeria a 45 year old man can marry a 14 years old girl, that should be a crime but for some reason if he has permission from the parents it's fine but we all know it's abnormal, the girls doesn't have a choice because she's not old enough.

The difference here is first both are adults of legal age, two no one is being taken advantage of (can you ask an animal for permission, do they have legal age, can they refuse such advance)

just having sex with a woman is not enough, she has to agree, if she's not in agreement ITS RAPE, just because you have the impulse to sleep with someone doesn't make it right.

How did this topic get to rape....?? What is ur point ...because Based on my comment u chose to mention....I don't get u

advanceDNA:



How did this topic get to rape....?? What is ur point ...because Based on my comment u chose to mention....I don't get u

for pple who fvck animals, pple attracted to children ?? Care to explain that??

You went to beastiality, and having sex with a child, so I help you understand impulse (illegal/immortal) impulses is not what we are talking about.

If no be say the guy they mad or in day possess waiting in day find go in follow man ass when girls with big boodies and ass full everywhere ....that remind me few years back their is this guy i went to for help when am fu°king broke i donT even no that the mad man is a gay... the mad man told me that he will bang me before in give me the money he's even showing me the money cash am seeing it i even thought he was joking untill he grab my ass to keep the story short the guy teeth full ground people gather us i explain waiting happen and he was denying it since then if i hear gay i day japa

wizrose:
If no be say the guy they mad or in day possess waiting in day find go in follow man ass when girls with big boodies and ass full everywhere ....that remind me few years back their is this guy i went to for help when am fu°king broke i donT even no that the mad man is a gay... the mad man told me that he will bang me before in give me the money he's even showing me the money cash am seeing it i even thought he was joking untill he grab my ass to keep the story short the guy teeth full ground people gather us i explain waiting happen and he was denying it since then if i hear gay i day japa

He might be happily married now with children, the problem is, because of that experience he will never it it.

sparko1:



You went to beastiality, and having sex with a child, so I help you understand impulse (illegal/immortal) impulses is not what we are talking about.

Oga...u are cherry picking....

U r the one trying to explain how genetics play a role in gay sex....but u dont want to explain for genetic olay the role in bisexuals, beastiality, sex with children etc.... U now want to o call it impulse.... Who are u to all their sexual preference impulse...but u don't want to agree ur gay sex is not imoulse

see...It doesn't matter wether it's rape, legal or consentual... U have to be first sexual attracted to a person or thing before u now non-consentually have sex with them....

U must have erection to have consensual or consensual sex....so u don't have point by calling one person's sex impulse and urs genetic...

sparko1:


He might be happily married now with children, the problem is, because of that experience he will never it it.

SO TRUE

advanceDNA:

Oga...u are cherry picking....

U r the one trying to explain how genetics play a role in gay sex....but u dont want to explain for genetic olay the role in bisexuals, beastiality, sex with children etc.... U now want to o call it impulse.... Who are u to all their sexual preference impulse...but u don't want to agree ur gay sex is not imoulse

see...It doesn't matter wether it's rape, legal or consentual... U have to be first sexual attracted to a person or thing before u now non-consentually have sex with them....

U must have erection to have consensual or consensual sex....so u don't have point by calling one person's sex impulse and urs genetic...

I am trying to explain the difference between a mental disorder and a human being having (legal) feeling for another person.

There are lots of things as related to human biology that we can't explain but don't know but one thing is certain, having sex with a child/animal is not biology it is just a mental illness.

sparko1:


I am trying to explain the difference between a mental disorder and a human being having (legal) feeling for another person.

There are lots of things as related to human biology that we can't explain but don't know but one thing is certain, having sex with a child/animal is not biology it is just a mental illness.

Lol.....so u can call someone's sexual preference mental illness....?? Hahahahahaha


See...anything different from man and woman sex is a deviation from nature and genetics...including ur gay sex....

If u cannot explain how a person is both attracted to men and women at the same time with ur so called genetics then u don't have point.....

ThothHermes:
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"?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Disagreeing with your worldview is not hate.

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

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.

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

Straw man 😁

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

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

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

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

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

Strongly disagree. The burden of proof lies with those who want us to accept something that the vast majority of the population finds repulsive.

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

No one is denying anyone any rights.

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

No substance here. You get points for style though. 🆒

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

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/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ThothHermes:

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

It would do you a whole lot of good to face the harsh reality, no matter how unpalatable it is for you. I can't help the fact that you're stuck in a binary thinking pattern, unable to comprehend that sexuality is a spectrum and human identity is complex. I also haven't failed to notice however, that you've mastered the art of evasion, dodging the actual point like a fencer dodges a riposte. Personal attacks and insults don't constitute a counterargument, and if you think you can rely on that to help your case, you're only going to wear yourself out digging a deeper grave for yourself. As for me, I can do this for as long as you want. If you wish to engage in a battle of wits, I suggest you bring your A-game, not your kindergarten playbook. Of course, if I were you, I'd just focus on the topic at hand. The clock is ticking, and so far, it's been a dismal display of intellectual acrobatics on your part.

Kenn55:


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.

This post is a perfect illustration of how prejudice masquerades as concern, and I'll demonstrate how shortly. But first, I'll address your little rant about my stance on incest.

While I couldn't care less about your opinions about my personal beliefs, and find them to be ultimately inconsequential, I'll simply point out the fact that it's well known that many/most people find incest to be intuitively morally wrong, rather than deducing it from careful thought. This is studied by presenting an incest scenario where none of the rational objections, like inbreeding issues, apply. Participants will still say that it is wrong, even though they have no argument for why. This, along with the trolley problem, is often used as evidence that people's intuitive moral judgments are flawed. But if you really want to go down that rabbit hole, then we can discuss it on another thread. But for now, let's stick to the main topic.

Now, you lot casually throw around the word "unnatural", but you don't realize that you are using a loaded term that has been used throughout history to justify discrimination against marginalized groups, including racial and religious minorities. It's a vague, subjective judgment that has no basis in fact or reason. Also, by framing sexual orientation and gender identity as "unnatural," you're implying that they're somehow less than human, less deserving of dignity and respect. This is the very essence of dehumanization. The notion that individuals need "help" because of their sexual orientation or gender identity is a harmful trope that has led to countless attempts at conversion therapy, a practice widely discredited by medical professionals and deemed inhumane by human rights organizations. Minimizing the harm caused by discriminatory beliefs doesn't make them any less harmful.

So please, spare me the false pretense. It's okay if you feel disgusted by LGBTQ+, but at least be honest: accept and embrace your bigotry for what it really is.

advanceDNA:


Lol.....so u can call someone's sexual preference mental illness....?? Hahahahahaha


See...anything different from man and woman sex is a deviation from nature and genetics...including ur gay sex....

If u cannot explain how a person is both attracted to men and women at the same time with ur so called genetics then u don't have point.....

How else should I explain this, a child/animal can't give consent and that is the only important credential for a relationship.

If you read my initial post you should buy now understand the biology, it's not Farfetch, the male and female geno get separated in the womb, there's no male or female egg, all eggs in a woman's womb is female by default.

Sexual orientation is mostly caused by biological factors that start before birth.

People don’t decide who they’re attracted to, and therapy, treatment, or persuasion won’t change a person’s sexual orientation. This is what the discussion is about.

sparko1:


How else should I explain this, a child/animal can't give consent and that is the only important credential for a relationship.


People don’t decide who they’re attracted to, and therapy, treatment, or persuasion won’t change a person’s sexual orientation. This is what the discussion is about.

Just because consent isn't there doesn't negate there was sexual desire.... U are just cherry picking.....

U are still cherry picking the one u tag as genetics and one u tag as impulse or mental problem..... Which genetics makes a person attracted to both men women, and other 2078 genders.. or have ur LGBT folks not taught u there is pansexual ??

JessicaRabbit:


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

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

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

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

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

We are speaking biologically. You insist on red herrings.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Biological evolution is not without direction.

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

Argument for another day then. 😁

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

I'm tired of repeating myself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ThothHermes:
We are starting to go round in circles. The many aspects of what you call the human experience are mutually exclusive. How many times will I say this? I can walk and chew gum, it doesn't mean I need to walk to chew gum or vice versa.

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

Declaring that LGBTQ+ couples build loving families or individuals display creativity is really non sequitur. Your arguments about nuance do not follow at all and sound desperate.

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

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

You're only just projecting here. Sexual attraction is absolutely a component for many LGBTQ+ folks. I've never denied that, and that's the difference between you and me. Where I acknowledge that there are many factors at play, you continue to assert that there's only one involved, and then you shut your eyes, stick your fingers in your ear like a bitter toddler, and think repeating yourself over and over will make the truth go away. If you had any self-awareness at all, you'd easily see the double standards you've set here. Is heterosexuality just about being attracted to the opposite sex? Isn't it also about the desire for emotional connection, building a life with someone, sharing dreams and vulnerabilities? Sexuality, for everyone, is a complex layer of emotional threads, social connections, and a yearning for intimacy. Refusing to acknowledge this only demonstrates that you lack any shred of intellectual integrity and/or honesty in this discussion. For LGBTQ+ people in particular, navigating that layer can be even more challenging. Coming to with your identity, facing societal pressures, and finding a community that accepts you -- these are all part of the experience, not to mention the courage it takes to live authentically in the face of prejudice. That is something to be ired, not dismissed.

We are speaking biologically. You insist on red herrings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know if you think human empathy is a political performance. There's a world of difference between understanding the "naturalness" of an impulse and using that as a weapon to deny people their humanity. Let's be frank, straight folks don't exactly have their procreation instincts surgically removed when they commit to a life partnership, do they? We accept the spectrum of human experience, the biological and social factors that weave together to make us who we are. Your point about love, commitment, and family being different across sexual orientations is a blatant red herring. The bedrock of these isn't some preordained biological script. It's about building a life with someone you love and cherish, about raising healthy and happy children. These desires transcend the mechanics of reproduction, and frankly, LGBTQ+ couples have a long and storied history of building beautiful, fulfilling families.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biological evolution is not without direction.

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

Argument for another day then. 😁

By all means, take your time.

I'm tired of repeating myself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BondRiv:
It is a CHOICE. No one is born gay. The deviance is chosen.

HellVictorinho6 say he waz born gay becuz he cry like woman sir.....and thats why he enjoy beggin for moiney on nairaland.
U dont bilif us..ask him!!!

MrCork:


HellVictorinho6 say he waz born gay becuz he cry like woman sir.....and thats why he enjoy beggin for moiney on nairaland.
U dont bilif us..ask him!!!

Mtchww

GreatAchiever1:


And if everyone is not one, don't be shoving such vices down our faces, because we will always oppose such novel ideologies.

History will say otherwise about the "shoving such vices down our faces". The gays weren't the ones who started conversion therapy neither were they the ones who started the crusades and went on an entire imperialist mission to force people to accept their religion by making them inhumane

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.

At this point in my life, I am done educating people, it's just funny now to watch them wallow in their ignorance. My experiences are not punchbags for them to feign ignorance on when the cure for such ignorance lies in their hands, it's just one swipe away

I see what you are doing and I envy you because you have that time to educate them, something I wish I had

JessicaRabbit:


This post is a perfect illustration of how prejudice masquerades as concern, and I'll demonstrate how shortly. But first, I'll address your little rant about my stance on incest.

While I couldn't care less about your opinions about my personal beliefs, and find them to be ultimately inconsequential, I'll simply point out the fact that it's well known that many/most people find incest to be intuitively morally wrong, rather than deducing it from careful thought. This is studied by presenting an incest scenario where none of the rational objections, like inbreeding issues, apply. Participants will still say that it is wrong, even though they have no argument for why. This, along with the trolley problem, is often used as evidence that people's intuitive moral judgments are flawed. But if you really want to go down that rabbit hole, then we can discuss it on another thread. But for now, let's stick to the main topic.

Now, you lot casually throw around the word "unnatural", but you don't realize that you are using a loaded term that has been used throughout history to justify discrimination against marginalized groups, including racial and religious minorities. It's a vague, subjective judgment that has no basis in fact or reason. Also, by framing sexual orientation and gender identity as "unnatural," you're implying that they're somehow less than human, less deserving of dignity and respect. This is the very essence of dehumanization. The notion that individuals need "help" because of their sexual orientation or gender identity is a harmful trope that has led to countless attempts at conversion therapy, a practice widely discredited by medical professionals and deemed inhumane by human rights organizations. Minimizing the harm caused by discriminatory beliefs doesn't make them any less harmful.

So please, spare me the false pretense. It's okay if you feel disgusted by LGBTQ+, but at least be honest: accept and embrace your bigotry for what it really is.

Is incest right or wrong? You can't answer Yes or No instead you are speaking grammar because you have boxed yourself into a situation where you can't accept one immoral behavior and reject another, you have to either accept all or reject all otherwise it will puncture all your argument. I feel for you sha.

Let me repeat again. Any feeling or lifestyle that is unnatural or abnormal is WRONG. These include gaybriel, incest, peadophile, trans shit, human/animal shit etc. You can't tell us to accept these shit as natural and right.
It may not be the fault of the people in that category but they need to know that it is wrong and possibly seek help and not to encourage and justify it as normal. If we don't say the truth, we risk having an out of control society where everyone will use the same template to justify their abnormal cravings and want it validated. It's already happening

For example, what will you say if nudists start coming to office stark naked and say it is normal and everyone should accept it after all we were all born naked? Then put the burden on you to remove your eyes away from their nude bodies. since they are not technically hurting anyone and it is their right to live their authentic life and be accepted as gaybriels use to argue, will it be okay to allow them to go everywhere naked? If we don't allow them, aren't we now Bigots?

It is one thing to do wrong things but it another thing to justify it and claim it is right. This is the crux of my argument. I am not a saint but I will not do is to justify my bad behavior or claim it is right. I'll rather ask for help to overcome that bad behavior.

You have talked about gaybriels raising successful families. This is the most selfish thing i've seen. Why will gaybriels adopt a child born from the combination of a sperm and woman egg? If what they are doing is normal as you claim, why can't sperm + sperm or egg + egg produce a baby? Why should they adopt an innocent child to live under the same sex parenting? Did the child give them consent to live that way? Why will they use an innocent child to fulfill their own disgusting abnormal cravings? Have they thought about the possible mental and psychological health of the child as he/she grow up to find 2 men or 2 women masquerading as father and mother? What If the child feels disgusted about that and falls into depression or even commit suicide ? They don't care cos it is all about them fulfilling their own abnormal cravings, the child feelings can go to hell. What a selfish set of people otherwise they would have only adopted children 18 years and above who already understand this issue and given their consent to it.

This will be my last post on this issue. You can call me a bigot if you want, I don't care. I will always subscribe to common sense. Thank you.

Kenn55:


Is incest right or wrong? You can't answer Yes or No instead you are speaking grammar because you have boxed yourself into a situation where you can't accept one immoral behavior and reject another, you have to either accept all or reject all otherwise it will puncture all your argument. I feel for you sha.

Let me repeat again. Any feeling or lifestyle that is unnatural or abnormal is WRONG. These include gaybriel, incest, peadophile, trans shit, human/animal shit etc. You can't tell us to accept these shit as natural and right.
It may not be the fault of the people in that category but they need to know that it is wrong and possibly seek help and not to encourage and justify it as normal. If we don't say the truth, we risk having an out of control society where everyone will use the same template to justify their abnormal cravings and want it validated. It's already happening

For example, what will you say if nudists start coming to office stark naked and say it is normal and everyone should accept it after all we were all born naked? Then put the burden on you to remove your eyes away from their nude bodies. since they are not technically hurting anyone and it is their right to live their authentic life and be accepted as gaybriels use to argue, will it be okay to allow them to go everywhere naked? If we don't allow them, aren't we now Bigots?

It is one thing to do wrong things but it another thing to justify it and claim it is right. This is the crux of my argument. I am not a saint but I will not do is to justify my bad behavior or claim it is right. I'll rather ask for help to overcome that bad behavior.

You have talked about gaybriels raising successful families. This is the most selfish thing i've seen. Why will gaybriels adopt a child born from the combination of a sperm and woman egg? If what they are doing is normal as you claim, why can't sperm + sperm or egg + egg produce a baby? Why should they adopt an innocent child to live under the same sex parenting? Did the child give them consent to live that way? Why will they use an innocent child to fulfill their own disgusting abnormal cravings? Have they thought about the possible mental and psychological health of the child as he/she grow up to find 2 men or 2 women masquerading as father and mother? What If the child feels disgusted about that and falls into depression or even commit suicide ? They don't care cos it is all about them fulfilling their own abnormal cravings, the child feelings can go to hell. What a selfish set of people otherwise they would have only adopted children 18 years and above who already understand this issue and given their consent to it.

This will be my last post on this issue. You can call me a bigot if you want, I don't care. I will always subscribe to common sense. Thank you.

Your argument is premise on the fact that procreation is the only basis for relationship/marriage?

If this is the case then you are wrong, there are lots of married people who wish to adopt, that doesn't make them unnatural.

Talking about vice as related to sex, there are many vices the society now sees as normal that was abnormal about 30- 50 years ago.

1. Sex before marriage
2. Baby mama
3. Marrying someone that is as young as your daughter.
4. Marrying an older woman and lots more.

Flamemignon1:

History will say otherwise about the "shoving such vices down our faces". The gays weren't the ones who started conversion therapy neither were they the ones who started the crusades and went on an entire imperialist mission to force people to accept their religion by making them inhumane

If I should ask you, what is your standard of morality? and also what if I tell you that I'm sexually attracted to under aged girls, what would you advice me? How would you see me?

Kenn55:


Is incest right or wrong? You can't answer Yes or No instead you are speaking grammar because you have boxed yourself into a situation where you can't accept one immoral behavior and reject another, you have to either accept all or reject all otherwise it will puncture all your argument. I feel for you sha.

Let me repeat again. Any feeling or lifestyle that is unnatural or abnormal is WRONG. These include gaybriel, incest, peadophile, trans shit, human/animal shit etc. You can't tell us to accept these shit as natural and right.
It may not be the fault of the people in that category but they need to know that it is wrong and possibly seek help and not to encourage and justify it as normal. If we don't say the truth, we risk having an out of control society where everyone will use the same template to justify their abnormal cravings and want it validated. It's already happening

For example, what will you say if nudists start coming to office stark naked and say it is normal and everyone should accept it after all we were all born naked? Then put the burden on you to remove your eyes away from their nude bodies. since they are not technically hurting anyone and it is their right to live their authentic life and be accepted as gaybriels use to argue, will it be okay to allow them to go everywhere naked? If we don't allow them, aren't we now Bigots?

It is one thing to do wrong things but it another thing to justify it and claim it is right. This is the crux of my argument. I am not a saint but I will not do is to justify my bad behavior or claim it is right. I'll rather ask for help to overcome that bad behavior.

You have talked about gaybriels raising successful families. This is the most selfish thing i've seen. Why will gaybriels adopt a child born from the combination of a sperm and woman egg? If what they are doing is normal as you claim, why can't sperm + sperm or egg + egg produce a baby? Why should they adopt an innocent child to live under the same sex parenting? Did the child give them consent to live that way? Why will they use an innocent child to fulfill their own disgusting abnormal cravings? Have they thought about the possible mental and psychological health of the child as he/she grow up to find 2 men or 2 women masquerading as father and mother? What If the child feels disgusted about that and falls into depression or even commit suicide ? They don't care cos it is all about them fulfilling their own abnormal cravings, the child feelings can go to hell. What a selfish set of people otherwise they would have only adopted children 18 years and above who already understand this issue and given their consent to it.

This will be my last post on this issue. You can call me a bigot if you want, I don't care. I will always subscribe to common sense. Thank you.

Bro, the folks who subscribe to these woke alphabet nonsense claim to show they are wise and progressive but mean while their argument and reasoning is just mental gymnastics when it comes to the standard of morality and how all these fits right into it.

GreatAchiever1:


If I should ask you, what is your standard of morality? and also what if I tell you that I'm sexually attracted to under aged girls, what would you advice me? How would you see me?

Attraction to underage girls is statutory rape, you are hurting someone to feel power, that's not even on the same wavelength with what people are doing with their own bodies

Flamemignon1:

Attraction to underage girls is statutory rape, you are hurting someone to feel power, that's not even on the same wavelength with what people are doing with their own bodies

To be honest with you, you're just a slave to the system that you yourself don't have your own standard of morality to live by based on what is humanly logical and right. Because the western law declares attraction to a minor as statutory rape but is cool with homosexuality, it now makes you give a dividing line amongst those vices.
They are on the same wavelength, it's not hurting anyone to feel any power, it is who I love and attracted to and you can't be prejudiced against that. And if you can't see the problem with those two vices in comparison, then your case is strong.

PS: I'm not sexually attracted to minors but even if I were, I know it's not the right thing to do and I would seek help immediately not to people who would make fun of me and judge me but would sympathize with me and help me to come off it. This is what the LGBTQ+ folks should be doing and not celebrating nonsense in the name of pride month, embracing diversity and other nonsense they say concerning it.

GreatAchiever1:


To be honest with you, you're just a slave to the system that you yourself don't have your own standard of morality to live by based on what is humanly logical and right. Because the western law declares attraction to a minor as statutory rape but is cool with homosexuality, it now makes you give a dividing line amongst those vices.
They are on the same wavelength, it's not hurting anyone to feel any power, it is who I love and attracted to and you can't be prejudiced against that. And if you can't see the problem with those two vices in comparison, then your case is strong.

PS: I'm not sexually attracted to minors but even if I were, I know it's not the right thing to do and I would seek help immediately not to people who would make fun of me and judge me but would sympathize with me and help me to come off it. This is what the LGBTQ+ folks should be doing and not celebrating nonsense in the name of pride month, embracing diversity and other nonsense they say concerning it.

The fact that you think it's the same as RAPE is shocking.

I have made a clear distinction already, if you are in a relationship with someone that can't give consent it's RAPE, even a gay man chasing young boys that are not adults and can't give consent is rape.

Kenn55:


<sanctimonious rant snipped>

This is JessicaRabbit.

In light of your recent comments on this topic, I can now see that you embody the worst kind of hypocrisy, donning a cloak of self-righteousness to mask your own shortcomings. You present yourself as a beacon of morality, casting judgment upon others while neglecting your own flaws. This brand of sanctimony is not only repugnant but also damaging, creating a toxic atmosphere of self-congratulation and condescension.

The point of this response is to make certain the puerile rubbish you posted never went unchallenged. I had already written a detailed response ripe with numerous links debunking your unevidenced assertions and bald faced lies, but I kept getting banned over and over, and I must it that it frustrated me to no end. But as Chinua Achebe wrote in Things Fall Apart, "Eneke the bird says that since men have learned to shoot without missing, he has learned to fly without perching". Thankfully, I saved one of my original responses in my phone's notepad app, so everyone can read my original rebuttal in the screenshots below: