stillwater:

Pre-marital sex is as bad as homosexuality.

thank you madam.  Sin is sin in the eyes of the Lord.

Sauron is beginning to act like the pharisees Jesus condemned.

I don't think the same God woulda changed his stance today so TAPE IT SHUT before you blaspheme.

too late

stillwater:

Pre-marital sex is as bad as homosexuality.

How so?
Comparing pre-marital sex to homosexuality is like comparing a liar to a serial killer.
Sin is NOT sin. Punishment for sins vary from degree to degree.

bawomolo:

thank you madam.  Sin is sin in the eyes of the Lord.

Delusion of grandeur!!!
Even to mere mortals, Homosexuality is a CARDINAL SIN!!!

Sauron is beginning to act like the pharisees Jesus condemned.

Jesus woulda spat on the faces of gays if he was still living.

~Sauron~:


Delusion of grandeur!!!
Even to mere mortals, Homosexuality is a CARDINAL SIN!!!

lol christianity may not be that bad after all.  you get a pass for committing the minor sins  .  Good to see you encouraging protected sex with your kids though.

Jesus woulda spat on the faces of gays if he was still living.

just like he spat on the prostitute right? oh please.  Jesus was non-violent.
you are beyond repair, only benny hinn can save you with his holy jacket


[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94FiUKTqfrI&hl=en&fs=1&"[/flash]

@all who think that humans can be born as homos and scientifically confirm it should reason abt this issue.did God create us to be animals and are we not different frm ANIMALS.HELLO !FOR CHRIST Sake .GOD CREATED US IN HIS IMAGE AND NOT BE DOGS,GORRILLAS OR TO BE MENTALLY RETARDED

Few quick questions for any one concerned
Since you say it is unnatural for people to be homosexuals, what in your opinion is the cause nature or nurture? Is it possible for nature to make a mistake? For instance we know that when we give birth to a child there are certain things we expect to see physically, if any of these are not present is it the fault of the person?
Are shemales unnatural people?

Total blasphemy,why do you people keep saying GOD created humans in his likeness,has anybody seen GOD and know how he is,remember GOD is incomparable to his creatures be it literally or metaphorically, he never share his GLORY with anybody

i think the shemales are supposed to be males though but they chose to be females by growing their hair and acting feminine with male private

uplawal:

Total blasphemy,why do you people keep saying GOD created humans in his likeness,has anybody seen GOD and know how he is,remember GOD is incomparable to his creatures be it literally or metaphorically, he never share his GLORY with anybody

Take a swing at the questions then, are shemales created in God's own likeness?

uplawal:

i think the shemales are supposed to be males though but they chose to be females by growing their hair and acting feminine with male private

Did they grow their breasts too?

Do you want a visual reminder of what they are like?

@chrisbenogor. These people have shifted goalpost a gazillion times, but we still dey score goals like say barca dey play Iwanyanwu nationale for Nou camp. They don't have ONE rational argument that works. At the end of the day they run back to their superstition.

bawomolo:


no offense deep sight but it seems you have fallen into the same trap as davidylan (a guy which you have criticized).  This comes off as bragging and trying to act as if you are better and smarter than the rest of us.    I guess you are the only one who read books during his childhood.  

Such closed-mindedness and braggadocio  is what led to the downfall of Sadducee and pharisees.  maybe we should start referring to you as deep sight PHD

Bawo - i absolutely apologize for that remark. You are right - it almost amounts to what i accused David of.

I must take it back unreservedly. In truth i was only trying to point out, in response to Krayola's statement that most of what i put forward is ripped to shreds, that perhaps the reason for that perception is the fact that we have vastly different backgrounds, mine being the library.

Nevertheless it was an idiotic remark on my part, i succumbed to temptation and i wholly regret it.

Once again, please pardon me.

@krayola
TO tell you the truth male homosexuals nauseate me, it is always good to see a sister on a sister but I got no beef against any set of them.
I just don't buy that is because they want to be different because truth be told I am not sure I see what they will gain by coming out of the closet.

Chrisbenogor:

@krayola
TO tell you the truth male homosexuals nauseate me, it is always good to see a sister on a sister  but I got no beef against any set of them.
I just don't buy that is because they want to be different because truth be told I am not sure I see what they will gain by coming out of the closet.

I think gay sex is nauseating as well, and that is an understatement. But it isn't my body.

I don't eat vegetables, I think they are disgusting tasteless animal food. I cringe when i see people stuff salad into their mouths. Do I think they are disgusting, yeah. . .is that enough to say there is something wrong with them? If the Bible asked us not to eat Jollof rice, these people will be throwing the same tantrums if anyone dared eat jollof rice. It is crazy how much power this stuff has on people.

@cris, i never supported the term "we are created in image and likeness of GOD" that would mean the shemales too were created in his likeness and thats absurd and GREAT BLASPHEMY, i just hope people will think well that GOD is not compared to any of his creatures

as for their breast, most of them dnt usually have big breast like women have, cos even nomally some fat men have breast,do u consider them as transgendered too?

Krayola:

Would you have liked to have had someone fukc your late father's corpse? Obviously a corpse can not give permission, but maybe a next of kin can. My point is that is is not your body to as as u please with. . .it is somebody elses. If a necrophiliac went to fukc a pillow, or sandpaper, that is his problem. 


I'm making it personal because this is personal to me. As i have stated earlier, my younger sister, whom i love with all my heart, is a lesbian. She is not a deviant. She is a saint. Remove her sexual orientation and most people would love to have her as a daughter, or a wife, or a friend.

DO i think homosexuality is disgusting, of course I do. But that is my personal opinion. If 2 adults want to be together, what the fukc is your beef? Are they videotaping it and sending you a copy? You think u are superior. ,  that your views should shape the world. I beg to differ.

Krayola - following your logic - if a next of kin gives his permission to the necrophile, then the act would become acceptable? What if it is the next of kin that is the necrophile - he has full rights to the corpse, yes?

You have to face up to the fact that you have no tangible argument against necrophila.

And THAT shows that you are being every bit as dogmatic as you accuse me of being in this matter.

I repeat, necrophillia is acceptable because -

   1. Consent is not required: a dead body is not a living thing: if consent is required, it can be given by a next of kin.
   2. It is the peculiar nature of the necrophiliac to so desire lifeless bodies.
   3. Animals have been known to hump dead bodies.
   5. It harms no one: given that it is performed on an already dead person.

YOU CANNOT escape the the argument above. At the risk of incurring your wrath (or your mockery!) i will say. . . It is iron clad!

In conclusion you too are discriminating against necrophiles. On what grounds, if i may ask?

_{P.S. Might i suggest to you that your younger sister being lesbian has made your judgment in this matter biased. Note - i am sure she is a lovable person, i do not condemn her for one second, but i say that the practice remains unnatural, or a deviation.}

uplawal:

@cris, i never supported the term "we are created in image and likeness of GOD" that would mean the shemales too were created in his likeness and thats absurd and GREAT BLASPHEMY, i just hope people will think well that GOD is not compared to any of his creatures

as for their breast, most of them dnt usually have big breast like women have, cos even nomally some fat men have breast,do u consider them as transgendered too?

Errrrrrrr I am sure you need a visual image, do a google image search on shemales and come back.

Deep Sight:

Krayola - following your logic - if a next of kin gives his permission to the necrophile, then the act would become acceptable? What if it is the next of kin that is the necrophile - he has full rights to the corpse, yes?

You have to face up to the fact that you have no tangible argument against necrophila.

And THAT shows that you are being every bit as dogmatic as you accuse me of being in this matter.

I repeat, necrophillia is acceptable because -

   1. Consent is not required: a dead body is not a living thing: if consent is required, it can be given by a next of kin.
   2. It is the peculiar nature of the necrophiliac to so desire lifeless bodies.
   3. Animals have been known to hump dead bodies.
   5. It harms no one: given that it is performed on an already dead person.

YOU CANNOT escape the the argument above. At the risk of incurring your wrath (or your mockery!) i will say. . . It is iron clad!

In conclusion you too are discriminating against necrophiles. On what grounds, if i may ask?

_{P.S. Might i suggest to you that your younger sister being lesbian has made your judgment in this matter biased. Note - i am sure she is a lovable person, i do not condemn her for one second, but i say that the practice remains unnatural, or a deviation.}

Let me wade in here, first I want to understand your position deep sight, by unnatural what exactly do you mean? Is there a template for what it takes to be a human being?

Deep Sight:

Krayola - following your logic - if a next of kin gives his permission to the necrophile, then the act would become acceptable?

You have to face up to the fact that you have no tangible argument against necrophila.

And THAT shows that you are being every bit as dogmatic as you accuse me of being in this matter.

I repeat, necrophillia is acceptable because -

  1. Consent is not required: a dead body is not a living thing: if consent is required, it can be given by a next of kin.
  2. It is the peculiar nature of the necrophiliac to so desire lifeless bodies.
  3. Animals have been known to hump dead bodies.
  5. It harms no one: given that it is performed on an already dead person.

YOU CANNOT escape the the argument above. At the risk of incurring your wrath (or your mockery!) i will say. . . It is iron clad!

In conclusion you too are discriminating against necrophiles. On what grounds, if i may ask?

_{P.S. Might i suggest to you that your younger sister being lesbian has made your judgment in this matter biased. Note - i am sure she is a lovable person, i do not condemn her for one second, but i say that the practice remains unnatural, or a deviation.}

here we go again. Another "iron clad" argument.  

Is there a victim, YES. The loved ones. I think necrophiliacs who fukc corpses without permission victimize the families of the loved ones. On those grounds, I think they should be reprimanded, and punished for the hurt caused to the loved ones.

If you gave someone permission to fukc your late dad i would think it was disgusting, but I would not insist that it did not happen. It isn't my choice. It is yours to do as you please, as long as u do not hinder anyone else's potential to be happy.

if they went around killing their victims, that is a different thing. My problem is with the loved ones of the victim, and the memory of their loved one being humped by a necrophiliac.

So much for iron clad. It seems all u read in those libraries were science fiction novels.


Now my question to you is this. How do you equate necrophiliacs with homosexuals? Awaiting another "iron clad" argument.

@bawomolo


Benny Hinn . . . Holy Jacket . , nice one there . . .

Deep Sight:


 
_{P.S. Might i suggest to you that your younger sister being lesbian has made your judgment in this matter biased. Note - i am sure she is a lovable person, i do not condemn her for one second, but i say that the practice remains unnatural, or a deviation.}

I have been against discrimination against gays and lesbians before i found out my sister was a lesbian, which was a lil under 2 years ago.
What about bawomolo, and chrisbenogor, and mazaje. . .are they closet homosexuals, or are they defending their family members too? Is there something wrong with caring about the happiness of others? Is that another sort of deviance?

as for their breast, most of them dnt usually have big breast like women have, cos even nomally some fat men have breast,do u consider them as transgendered too?

Are you saying hermaphrodites and co were born to be men? interesting. 

No2Atheism:

@bawomolo


Benny Hinn . . . Holy Jacket . ,   nice one there . . . 

i need that jacket.  Imagine the thieves that can be killed using benny hinn's holy jacket.   

Krayola:

I have been against discrimination against gays and lesbians before i found out my sister was a lesbian, which was a lil under 2 years ago.
What about bawomolo, and chrisbenogor, and mazaje. . .are they closet homosexuals, or are they defending their family members too? Is there something wrong with caring about the happiness of others? Is that another sort of deviance?

I agree, there's nothing wrong with caring.  If someone is happy being gay, why try to ruin their parade?   The last thing we want to do is forced them into the closet and unhappy marriages.

Krayola - i dont believe you have in any terms dealt with the necrophila argument: i seek to point out through it that the very arguments you use to defend homosexuality can be used to defend virtually all sexual perversions.

I bow out at this stage: my reason is that i sense that this is a touchy subject for you, given your sister's inclination.

Peace.

Deep Sight:

Krayola - i dont believe you have in any terms dealt with the necrophila argument: i seek to point out through it that the very arguments you use to defend homosexuality can be used to defend virtually all sexual perversions.

I bow out at this stage: my reason is that i sense that this is a touchy subject for you, given your sister's inclination.

Peace.

hahahah. U are running because every argument you have presented as "iron clad" has been shown to be pure hate inspired nonsense. I'm waiting for you to come and show me how you equate necrophiliacs with homosexuals, and how that will pass the "iron-clad" test. I can't wait.

This isn't a touchy subject for me so please don't feel the need to be nice, or hold your tongue. Express yourself as freely as you wish. . . I will never have a negative view of you for disagreeing with me. Which may explain why I don't have a negative view of homosexuals. This is just debate on Nairaland, so I'm not hurt or offended by any of this. If you read thru this thread u will see I have endured some really really nasty stuff said about both myself and my sister. But I think what is clear from this debate is that objection to homosexuality is not reasonable. It is sentiment driven, and not the result of any rational thought process, or objective analysis of the data available on the subject.


But that said, I'm going to fail woefully this term because of Nairaland. I need to get out of here too. ciao.

Well, if you insist.

First off: please ignore all those insults some people on this thread directed at you and your sister. The one who talked about her being stoned to death in another milieu is really off his rockers. I was really shocked at that level of insensitivity (or insanity).

Listen, i must give it to you that you have advanced some excellent rebuttals of my propositions, but these are the ones i believe you have not oversome:

1. Balance in existence (Positive v. Negative)

2. The argument of anatomy.

3. The argument of justification of perversions.

4. The social-illogicality argument (i am just introducing this now)

I will take one at a time.

But before i start, please let's be clear on one thing: my aim is to show that homosexuality is unnatural. Not to condemn, discriminate, or inspire revulsion. Simple.

I start by defining the word "unnatural".

I use the Oxford's Advanced Learner's dictionary: Unnatural: "1. - Different from that which is normal or expected 2. Different from that occuring in nature"

Pastor AIO:

I don't think you are going to find what you seek on youtube.  Perhaps some pornographic website. 

So these are now pornography?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lcpfe7ocCA&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe-0RXX5RoI&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7lA8g8bUn8&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCDlSU-E6ds&feature=related

And these are people I should respect their views and analysis?

Ya must be havin a laff!!!

Krayola:

deepsight. . .u have made over 100 "iron clad"arguments on nairaland.  Almost every single one has been ripped to shreds with laughable ease. Get over urself.

Typical!!!

When he has no argument or his argument is cornered (a situation he knows if he responds, he would be torn to shreds or he just does not have a logical response), he claims victory to distract from the debate.

Deep Sight:

Very good, thanks.

Let's start with necrophillia:

It is not a sexual perversion because -

  1. Consent is not required: a dead body is not a living thing: it might as well be a pillow.

  2. It is the peculiar nature of the necrophiliac to so desire lifeless bodies, and according to you we must NOT discriminate.

  3. Animals have been known to hump dead bodies, so it is natural. There is also a giant specie of spider that kills all its sexual partners without exception.

  4. You condemn it just because it is disgusting to you (same thing you accused me of, on homo-sexuality)

  5. It harms no one: given that it is performed on an already dead person.

SO HOW DARE YOU CALL IT UNNATURAL?

CAN YOU SEE THAT YOU ARE BEING JUST AS DOGMATIC AS YOU ACCUSE ME OF BEING? ? ? ? ?

You are wicked o! 

You set a trap, drove him like a goat until he fell for it and you now pulled the trigger. 

YES, a dead person does can not give consent so someone can not be guilty of something except you can prove consent was required and likely to be a NO.

Krayola:

Would you have liked to have had someone fukc your late father's corpse? Obviously a corpse can not give permission, but maybe a next of kin can. My point is that is is not your body to as as u please with. . .it is somebody elses. If a necrophiliac went to fukc a pillow, or sandpaper, that is his problem. 


I'm making it personal because this is personal to me. As i have stated earlier, my younger sister, whom i love with all my heart, is a lesbian. She is not a deviant. She is a saint. Remove her sexual orientation and most people would love to have her as a daughter, or a wife, or a friend.

DO i think homosexuality is disgusting, of course I do. But that is my personal opinion. If 2 adults want to be together, what the fukc is your beef? Are they videotaping it and sending you a copy? You think u are superior. ,  that your views should shape the world. I beg to differ.

What a ridiculous postulation!!!

Since next of kin must give permission before people have sex?  So what if the dead person says he wants the necrophilic to have sex with him when he dies, would you still object?

Face it, mate, the disgust is your driving objection not consent.

At least you have eventually given us the driver of your support for gays. It is emotional, not objective.

Are we having these false claims of homosexuality in the wild again?

bawomolo:

no offense deep sight but it seems you have fallen into the same trap as davidylan (a guy which you have criticized).  This comes off as bragging and trying to act as if you are better and smarter than the rest of us.    I guess you are the only one who read books during his childhood.   

Such closed-mindedness and braggadocio  is what led to the downfall of Sadducee and pharisees.  maybe we should start referring to you as deep sight PHD

Look, mate, whether it comes off as bragging or not is irrelevant.

The fact is that he might be stating the truth and then some people who do not acquire information or assess it critically would now want to come and be debating with the very, very few and exclusive set that do. And then they wonder why their poorly-thought through arguments (they are 2 consenting adults blah blah blah) are torn to shreds and that of the knowledge-seeker and critical analyst is watertight (like my criteria).

bawomolo:

deep sight, I expect a "well learned" man like you to shy away from such absolutist statement.  It's sad to say you  haven't freed yourself from the dogma you campaign against.   Homosexuality and bisexuality exists in the animal kingdom and is well documented.  gay penguins in a certain zoo remained gay even after they were exposed to other female penguins.  There are other examples of this.   

No, mate, from my understanding, gay-terrorists objected and campaigned against the introduction of opposite sex penguins. Correct me if I am wrong.

And when you do, I have an interesting question to ask you. More demonstration of critical analysis is on the horizon.

@deepsight. I get school abeg. For December we go deal wit am. This shit is takin too much time. No vex abeg

Chrisbenogor:

Few quick questions for any one concerned
Since you say it is unnatural for people to be homosexuals, what in your opinion is the cause nature or nurture? Is it possible for nature to make a mistake? For instance we know that when we give birth to a child there are certain things we expect to see physically, if any of these are not present is it the fault of the person?
Are shemales unnatural people?

That is where we should be allowed to research without gay-terrorists trying to destroy the people looking into it and insisting we accept them by force.

Lets research, so we don't make decisions out of ignorance. And lets look if there is a cure.

There are researches ongoing into peadophilia and possible therapy to cure it, no one is saying and insisting they might be born that way and THAT IS IT.

If they think they can cure that, why can't they cure homosexuality?

gay penguins in a certain zoo remained gay even after they were exposed to other female penguins.

They both "remained gay" because gay-rights activists demanded females shld not be introduced to them. Needless to say they both broke up the minute one found the chance to elope with a female penguin.