wiegraf: Oh boy, na wa. Which kind style be dis. Abi na short story u dey write. I write some of the longer posts, but this one puts mine to shame


Yes, no harm done and it is unambiguously all right. There is harm done obviously with any pre-pubescent. With young teens and their peers, the line is blurrier. Of course it should be discouraged till they're capable of being responsible for themselves, but it should not be officially persecuted.

Now, with predators, it should be persecuted, even in relationships where they might seem genuinely happy. Reason being, for now, with our current level of maturity, the odds are an adult would manipulate and abuse trust in order to get what he wanted. Like our good priests. We have to set limits to protect those without the experience to make choices which could have far reaching consequences from being manipulated, which the very vast majority of young teens are. Or simply protect them from being easily r.aped and abused, ie in the case of predators that are outright violent.




Many also become capable slaves. Adopt some nice stockholm syndrome. Many don't become capable wives, etc.

And I'm atheist in nigeria. Do I strike you as one that simply accepts the norm?




There is no such thing as objective moral evil (maybe natural evil, but not moral). You even suggest as much the paragraph before this one by pointing out cultural differences.

I could get married for money. Or simply company, no need for kids. Or a variety of other reasons. Who are you to tell people their purpose for getting married?

And any, absolutely any argument built around your 'god' boils down to opinions, or "because I say so". I don't have to tell you this, at this point I'm not even sure if you're trolling. Mayhaps this is an xtian only thread in which case of course invoking 'god' would be justified, but the op didn't seem to indicate so. I could be wrong though, and she should explicitly say so. Else your unverifiable god told you something, just why should we non believers care?


Assumptions as usual.

Again, homosexuality is abundant in nature. It reinforces social bonds, and may have other unknown benefits. Lust could be for that. And you're glaringly ignoring that we are conscious and intelligent, and not under any obligation to follow mother natures supposed plan. How it could have one is to me obviously a mystery, considering it doesn't have a will, unlike us.

Also, not using tools for their supposed purpose is now a crime? Wow



Maybe, so?

I could also speculate that if sex were not enjoyable, many members of our species would spend virtually no time with members of the opposite sex. Actually that would be likely considering our rank differences. Less motivation to get married and have kids. Here's a novel thought, mayhaps that's why sex is so pleasurable? It has to be that satisfying just to make us more tolerant of each other? We wouldn't even have evolved this way were it not for pleasurable sex by the way. I put it to you that we'd all be gay without pleasurable sex, and handle marriages more like what they really are under the facade, business transactions.

But all that aside, still; maybe, so?



This doesn't make sense, at all. As far as personality is involved, it usually is nature vs nurture. A combination of both. You're born with a range of possibilities, nurture helps determine paths you ultimately take. Some with more limited ranges of options, others with not. As for the influence of genes, there is a correlation between intelligence and genes for instance. And empathy even (not so sure, i'll have to verify that). There are kids who from a very young age display traits more commonly associated with their opposite sex.

Seriously, do you think that in this environment for instance, where bigotry is astronomical, one would willingly choose to be gay? For what benefit?

And all these point to opinions and assumptions. If you intend to justify persecuting them from a non-religious perspective, I hope you have valid reasons



Like you say, your argument. Proof, where? Another opinion. Homosexuality is not observed only in our species, you're claiming it's not natural, why? Because you say so? What of those who've never been near a boarding school or prison? What of boys raised primarily by women who go on to become straight? Or those raised in a macho environment, persistently be encouraged to become straight, yet become gay?



It does sound weird, and it's 'your theory'. Backed up by weak logic and no evidence. Ignoring nature completely. You think all behavior is learned? Were you taught how to be happy or sad? You're now suggesting you're taught how to be sexually attracted to people. I suppose you, I, everyone could be taught to become primarilly gay then?

And animals, beings that are for the most part instinctive?



Even if so, what in the world concerns you with someone else's preferences that do not harm you in any.single.way whatsoever?




The second 'I hold', that's your opinion



Your moral standards. Opinion, after opinion, after opinion....

I'm not sure you get this: nobody outside your religion cares in the least about what you find sinful, at all. You cannot find a cogent reason to persecute homos that is not religious (and you have not, in any way), keep it in your church. Don't expect non xtians to consider sins, at all. You might as well consider killing me on saturday, as I'll be working then.




Opinion, opinion, opinion. Liar lies to you for some sort of gain which harms you in some sort of way, he has harmed you, and deserves some sort of punishment maybe. Thief obviously harming you. Drunkard, so long as he's not harming anyone, non of your business. Fornicator? Depends on the nature of their marriages. All parties involved happy with the arrangements? Open marriages? It doesn't harm you, it's non of your business. Yes, a woman has multiple spouses, or a man does, consenting adults all around? Non of your business (problem with this is the predators, like the 40 year old above. there's a tendency to force women into slavery in societies where this is the norm, so I wouldn't exactly say we should endorse it). Obviously, consenting adult homosexuals, not in any way your business.


Your arguments boil down to 'because I say so'. Assumption after assumption.
You're condescending towards people committing a sin in your books, not a crime. And you're equating them to criminals like liars and thieves.
In other cultures, homosexuals have been valued. They are wrong just because you say so? The productive, happy homosexuals in society deserve your pity because? Do you have anything they want?

Keep your holier than thou to yourself brah. Well, you're free to indulge actually, it's obviously not my place tell anyone what to do when they're not actively harming anyone. But your god commits genocide, you have no problem with that. Yet you have problems with consenting adults in a loving relationship because said god, whose existence hasn't been proven in any way, supposedly has issues with it? His ways are mysterious indeed.

Why should we care about sins, really?


Edited

Wow, long post and I read through all of it but my friend, I really don't intend to argue this further because I see it ending in fruitlessness and I am a bit NL lazy to go into an argument that will feature long sermon after long sermon with neither of us budging.

Of all you said however, one thing stood out to me that I think undermines your whole argument (and I have highlighted that). The moment you deny objective moral values, all morality becomes subjective and we can no longer determine good and evil with any certainty. The whole argument we are having here about whether homosexuality is right or wrong or any other such argument for that matter loses all meaning and immediately breaks down since we have no objective moral values.

My whole argument rests on the fact that there are such things as are objectively morally good and objectively morally evil. Now you have denied this, we no longer have an argument but I will have you know that this also means that you lose credibility and can no longer be taken seriously whenever you say something or anything is good or evil because all you will be voicing is a subjective opinion.

For instance I'll quote you here to show you what I mean:

Keep your holier than thou to yourself brah (there is no such thing as "holier" if there are no objective moral values). Well, you're free to indulge actually, it's obviously not my place tell anyone what to do when they're not actively harming anyone (Without objective morality, what you consider to be harm is very different from what the next person might consider harm to be and more so, how is harm a bad thing whatever you mean by it?). But your god commits genocide, you have no problem with that.(there is nothing wrong with genocide if there are no objective moral values. It is just your subjective opinion that genocide is somehow wrong) Yet you have problems with consenting adults in a loving relationship because said god, whose existence hasn't been proven in any way, supposedly has issues with it? His ways are mysterious indeed.

My comments in red are there to show you an example of how the meaning of the argument breaks down completely once you deny objective moral values. It just becomes two people arguing over nothing.


As I always say; you can escape from any argument if you are willing to pay a high enough price. In this case, the price you have paid is to strip morality of all its meaning.

Goodluck to you.

Smartie gurl: You have all made your points/views nd beliv me, i got ur reasons, buh watever be the case you all got to realise and understand that Gays/Lesbeins ar nt normal people nd wil never be. So if you ar there nd u are a gay/lesbien retrace ur step cuz you got it all wrong, u hav either been decievd or lured into the act. The earlier u change nd become a normal human the better for you.

From your Christian perception, its wrong. However you have no right or power to condemn a diverse and opposing act based on your dogma. That in itself is wrong

Kay 17:

From your Christian perception, its wrong. However you have no right or power to condemn a diverse and opposing act based on your dogma. That in itself is wrong

Lol from what perception do you judge the "christian dogma" to be wrong? And what makes your own brand of dogma a more valid judge of right and wrong?

Though we moral values and codes are not universal, however we are still compelled judge morals by our standards of the time

Kay 17: Though we moral values and codes are not universal, however we are still compelled judge morals by our standards of the time

She is doing the exact same thing: judging morals by her standards of the time.

Why are you denying her that right? What makes your morals more valid than hers?

In a time where there is an international declaration on the freedom of persons and freedom from discrimination based on ethnicity and sexual preference?

In a time where homosexuality is seen as a legimiate desire?

Kay 17: In a time where there is an international declaration on the freedom of persons and freedom from discrimination based on ethnicity and sexual preference?

In a time where homosexuality is seen as a legimiate desire?

International declaration in which country?

fellis:

International declaration in which country?

Human rights?
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37026#.UKYjneRWySo

Ok. But in Nigeria where I live there is no tolerance for homosexuals and they get 14 years in prison is found carrying out homosexual acts.

fellis: Ok. But in Nigeria where I live there is no tolerance for homosexuals and they get 14 years in prison is found carrying out homosexual acts.

And you wonder why your country is backwards. Take a look at the top 10 peaceful countries in the world. All allowing gays to be free. Also, not surprising, no muslim country is among the peaceful 10

Logicboy03:




And you wonder why your country is backwards. Take a look at the top 10 peaceful countries in the world. All allowing gays to be free. Also, not surprising, no muslim country is among the peaceful 10

So supporting homosexuality is what makes countries peaceful or what point are you trying to make?

fellis:

So supporting homosexuality is what makes countries peaceful or what point are you trying to make?

That is clearly not my point and you know it.


The point is that gay rights doesnt destroy the "moral" fabric of the society, contradictory to what many muslims and christians say.

The other point is that supporting gay rights on a ntaional is a sign of human advancement. It shows that one is logically considering the pros and cons of gay rights to see that it doesnt harm the society in the long run and creates a diverse environment.

Kay 17: In a time where there is an international declaration on the freedom of persons and freedom from discrimination based on ethnicity and sexual preference?

In a time where homosexuality is seen as a legimiate desire?

And when exactly did she suggest that anyone should not be free or that anyone should be discriminated against based upon sexual preference?

Secondly, this is also a time homosexuality is seen as an illegitimate desire. It all depends on who is seeing. My question remains: What makes your point of view more valid than hers?

fellis: Ok. But in Nigeria where I live there is no tolerance for homosexuals and they get 14 years in prison is found carrying out homosexual acts.

Nigeria adopted the declaration.

Mr_Anony:
And when exactly did she suggest that anyone should not be free or that anyone should be discriminated against based upon sexual preference?

Secondly, this is also a time homosexuality is seen as an illegitimate desire. It all depends on who is seeing. My question remains: What makes your point of view more valid than hers?

u can ask him that again.

Kay 17:

Nigeria adopted the declaration.

Did they? When last I checked they hadn't adopted it.

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/africa/Nigerian-lawmakers-move-ahead-on-anti-gay-bill/-/1066/1619634/-/1306f7v/-/index.html

Mr_Anony:
Wow, long post and I read through all of it but my friend, I really don't intend to argue this further because I see it ending in fruitlessness and I am a bit NL lazy to go into an argument that will feature long sermon after long sermon with neither of us budging.

Of all you said however, one thing stood out to me that I think undermines your whole argument (and I have highlighted that). The moment you deny objective moral values, all morality becomes subjective and we can no longer determine good and evil with any certainty. The whole argument we are having here about whether homosexuality is right or wrong or any other such argument for that matter loses all meaning and immediately breaks down since we have no objective moral values.

My whole argument rests on the fact that there are such things as are objectively morally good and objectively morally evil. Now you have denied this, we no longer have an argument but I will have you know that this also means that you lose credibility and can no longer be taken seriously whenever you say something or anything is good or evil because all you will be voicing is a subjective opinion.

For instance I'll quote you here to show you what I mean:


My comments in red are there to show you an example of how the meaning of the argument breaks down completely once you deny objective moral values. It just becomes two people arguing over nothing.


As I always say; you can escape from any argument if you are willing to pay a high enough price. In this case, the price you have paid is to strip morality of all its meaning.

Goodluck to you.

All morality (again, maybe except one built around natural evil) is subjective. I'm willing to own up to it and address it, rather than cower in fear or give up and hope mythical beings and fairy tales have all the answers. It doesn't make my case any weaker. In practice that's how it's always worked anyways. And if you think a moral code built around a 'god' that has never been verified and has allegedly ordered genocide is a better option, I wouldn't be surprised if you thought driving into a wall was a good idea.

wiegraf:


All morality (again, maybe except one built around natural evil) is subjective. I'm willing to own up to it and address it, rather than cower in fear or give up and hope mythical beings and fairy tales have all the answers. It doesn't make my case any weaker. In practice that's how it's always worked anyways. And if you think a moral code built around a 'god' that has never been verified and has allegedly ordered genocide is a better option, I wouldn't be surprised if you thought driving into a wall was a good idea.

What's genocide? Just curious about how you define it.

Ihedinobi:

What's genocide? Just curious about how you define it.

Anonyism at play. You and Anony should be banned from asking silly questions.


You no get dictionary?

Your god committed genocide.

Smartie gurl: Should they be killed? Should they be jailed? Should they be stoned? Should they be left alone? Should they be loved nd cared for? Should they be encouraged? Or should we pray for them? Wats ur opinion?

Leviticus 20:13
 "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads

Segun agagu:
Leviticus 20:13
 "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads

Do you believe that nonsense?

Logicboy03:



Anonyism at play. You and Anony should be banned from asking silly questions.


You no get dictionary?

Your god committed genocide.

Did He? Really, tell me how. You've aroused my curiosity.

Ihedinobi:

Did He? Really, tell me how. You've aroused my curiosity.

@ bold. Did I give you an ere.ction? Now thats gay




What do you call flooding the earth and killing people?

Logicboy03:

@ bold. Did I give you an ere.ction? Now thats gay




What do you call flooding the earth and killing people?

I think I'd call it "flooding the earth and killing people" . . . at least until I know who did it and why.

Ihedinobi:

I think I'd call it "flooding the earth and killing people" . . . at least until I know who did it and why.

Anonyism at play here.

How dubious of you

Logicboy03:

@ bold. Did I give you an ere.ction? Now thats gay

Oh, I like you alright. Just not like that

Ihedinobi:

Oh, I like you alright. Just not like that

You like me? Are you sure you wont sacrifice me to Yaweh?


The last time I checked, Buzugee aka Obadiah was ready to tie me to a cross and flog atheism out of me

Logicboy03:


Anonyism at play here.

How dubious of you

Oh c'mon! What you gonna do next? Say that I'm Anony with another handle?

I think it's simple really. Haven't heard you accuse the oceans of genocide despite the fact that tidal waves have in the last decade alone wiped out hundreds of thousands of human beings especially in a localized manner.

Logicboy03:


You like me? Are you sure you wont sacrifice me to Yaweh?


The last time I checked, Buzugee aka Obadiah was ready to tie me to a cross and flog atheism out of me

Lol. I solemnly promise that I won't do anything like that. I don't even need to, come to think of it. And no, I don't plan to tie you to anything and flog anything out of you. I just like you, I think you're silly-sweet. Like a baby.

Ihedinobi:

Oh c'mon! What you gonna do next? Say that I'm Anony with another handle?

I think it's simple really. Haven't heard you accuse the oceans of genocide despite the fact that tidal waves have in the last decade alone wiped out hundreds of thousands of human beings especially in a localized manner.

You are not Anony but you use his techniques. Please, just call it genocide. I dont have strenght to argue. My thread on Abdulsleeks adventures sapped my strenght

Ihedinobi:
Lol. I solemnly promise that I won't do anything like that. I don't even need to, come to think of it. And no, I don't plan to tie you to anything and flog anything out of you. I just like you, I think you're silly-sweet. Like a baby.

Why would you call me a baby? I fear you!


Anyway, many people here unfortunately think that I'm the anti-christ!

Logicboy03:

You are not Anony but you use his techniques. Please, just call it genocide. I dont have strenght to argue. My thread on Abdulsleeks adventures sapped my strenght

Well, you did name me his disciple. You not complaining now that I fit the role you assigned me, are you? And why should I call it genocide na? Even in human law courts, the accused is assumed innocent until his guilt is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, no?

Why would you call me a baby? I fear you!


Anyway, many people here unfortunately think that I'm the anti-christ!

You're like one na. You throw tantrums for attention, pick fights that you always lose and cry pitifully when you take a beating. Geez! The more I think about it now, the more I just realize that I like you and want to take care of you.

As for the antichrist thing, you do try. But you fail where it matters: in the heart. You're like a kid who ran away from home cos he didn't like having to eat veggies. Now he's starving and wants badly to eat those delicious-looking veggies but is afraid of looking like he made a mistake so he sits and whines like a puppy.

Ihedinobi:

Well, you did name me his disciple. You not complaining now that I fit the role you assigned me, are you? And why should I call it genocide na? Even in human law courts, the accused is assumed innocent until his guilt is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, no?



You're like one na. You throw tantrums for attention, pick fights that you always lose and cry pitifully when you take a beating. Geez! The more I think about it now, the more I just realize that I like you and want to take care of you.

As for the antichrist thing, you do try. But you fail where it matters: in the heart. You're like a kid who ran away from home cos he didn't like having to eat veggies. Now he's starving and wants badly to eat those delicious-looking veggies but is afraid of looking like he made a mistake so he sits and whines like a puppy.

OMG....I am dying with laughter! Why does everyone think that I am some kind of teenager? You know what? I give up!


Anyways, it makes no difference, I am always going to be an atheist. Its very difficult for an atheist to convert back