ILOCHUDI:

@ sagamite
i think the ( white west) as u put it do make their laws mainly cos they value their freedom more to what people think is right and normal than we ( the black east). What is rly moral to you might not be to the other person. Try to think of if that which you are claiming to be immoral really affects you OR JUST THAT YOU CANT STAND IT.
People are trying to be free and happy not caged and unhappy and living in a hypocritical and pretended environment.
Remeber that you were being considered cos of ur coloured skin to be a slave, even it was claimed that the bible made it right ( the sons of HAM shall be hewers of wood), but people wanted freedom and acceptance.
THAT IS CIVILISATION

ILOCHUDI:

@sagamite
guy i wonder at this your moral and immoral blablabla
the real worry that man-lover men or women face is not the fact that they are sleeping with people of the same intimacy ( which i think they can choose not to, by being celibate) but the fact that they cannot freely ,happily or comfortabily have intimacy with the people of opposite gender.
If you can give a very good convincing solution to their worry maybe they can start listening to you. COME UP WITH A SOLUTION MAN
than all this your baseless arguments that is mainly based on sentiments and what yourself think is right or wrong ( THINGS ARE NOT DONE THAT WAY AGAIN MAN, DONT BE IN THE DARK)

ILOCHUDI:

@sagamite
[color=#006600]People being free and happy is not necessarily a good thing[/color]
  na whao for you bros for saying this at this stage of life and globalisation.
maybe slavery shouldnt be abolished ( cos most whites dont rly want to be free, considering how important you
are to them in doing the hard work for them).
Laws these days  my bro ( though i am more inclined to knowing about science than knowing about laws) are mainly made or tried to be made not on what the imperfect human thinks is right or wrong but on what can make people free and HABITABLE (no matter the colour of your skin, religion, social status and sexuality), as long as they are harmless and victimless. MAN SHOW YOUR EDUCATION

dexmond:

My people come to think of it. I know that some govts of the world have given them the right to adopt children! Will the child call both parents Daddies? IF they are both referred to as Daddies, who will be the Mummy? What If the child ask for Mummy? what will they tell him/her? The same thought applies to a woman marrying another woman.

Think about it.

Sagamite:

It is a fuucked up concept that the child is put into by people that claim their laws are based on the best interest of the child.

But as is the case, the best interest of the gay supercedes the best interest of the child.

Sagamite:

If you had even bothered to read my blablablas, bleblebles and gbogbogbos, you might have seen this (which is not sentiment but logic):

To determine how we deal with the perversion of homosexualism, we need to determine how it comes into existence. Quick think-through suggest 3 possibilities to me:

1) Born that way
2) Developed into it for peculiar reasons
3) Choice due to perversion

If it is:
(1) Then we have to determine whether we can and want to find a way to turn them straight, if we can not then we have to accept them the way they are. No be their fault and we can not transform them.
(2) It is not natural and it is a problem in the system that has resulted in some being perverted and abnormal. Then we should be able to research without personality attacks from the gay mafia and find a cure just like the west have been trying to find one for paedophilia.
(3) Lock them up.

If I was a scientist that was going to do research to show naturality of homosexuality by showing animals are also gay (and hence proving that it is (1) above), then I will have to set criteria, which will include:

a) The animals for the study must be in their natural setting hence nothing is forcing them to show unnatural traits as the aim of the research is to show a NATURAL behaviour.
b) The animals must have assess to both sexes of animals for intercourse but specifically choose same sex intercourse.
c) The gay animals must be a sub-set of the animals not all the animals as this shows some where born gay and some straight, not an overly sexed specie.
d) The subset of gay animals must be decently large percentage of the animals and they frequent demonstrate this desire/behaviour. It is not a SINGLE, RARE OCCURRENCE which shows a crazed animal. Remember a crazed animal is not a gay animal. Otherwise all we have proved is that animals too have mad ones.
e) There is penetration and ejaculation as this shows that it is actually a pleasurable sexual intercourse that has resulted from AROUSAL of the mating animals and they want to get at it just like same sex do.
f) Ideally also show that there is exhibition of mating rituals between the animals as this proves that those gays that behave (talk, dress, walk etc) like the opposite sex are not some demented souls but this criterion is relaxable as I know it is hard to show.
g) Ideally also show at least 10 different types of animals that demonstrate all these, but this is also relaxable because I am confident one cannot even be found.

debosky:

No I'm not, but I am disappointed when statements are made which are non-factual and are not logical. Defining situations like 'normal' the way Saga did is not reasonable.

Lolz!
Relax bruv

debosky:

Wrong - many homosexual couples have successfully raised children who are balanced and heterosexual.

debosky:

If there were enough heterosexual couples adopting kids we wouldn't need to have homosexual couples adopting. If the choice is between an abusive hetero couple and a rational and mature gay couple, then the gay couple should get the child.

debosky:

The fact is, as long as you recognise homosexuality as not a case of 'abnormality', then there is no legal reason to refuse adoption by a gay couple once they have met all the requirements.

Sagamite:

Bleep me! Where did you see that as my argument? Jeez.

The argument is not which is better than the other.

This is the only point I can see a little bit of sense in.

But is it in the best interest of the child to put them in an unnatural set up?

Sagamite:

The argument is not which is better than the other.

This is the only point I can see a little bit of sense in.

But is it in the best interest of the child to put them in an unnatural set up?

debosky:

Albinos are rare, yet they have the same rights as anyone else, so 'rarity' is not an excuse to deny any group of their rights.

debosky:

What is this search for a 'decently large percentage'? Why must there be such a percentage to give homosexuality validity? The normal/sufficient quality of an individual is not dependent on the frequency of occurrence. There are very few pygmies in the world vis a vis the world population, but they are a valid subset; ditto albinos, drawfs and numerous others.

debosky:

Whether this occurred in a 'natural' condition or not is immaterial. Who defines what is 'natural'? Can we recreate the Garden of Eden and return to how Adam and Eve were supposed to reproduce? Heck based on biblical accounts, NONE OF US are normal so I guess you're a freak who deserves extermination too.

Secretz:

A child in a home raised by a straight couple who abuses them, is not a natural set up either.

Sagamite:

Yeah!

That is why there is legislation to prevent that and to protect them.

debosky:

No, the argument is - what is best for the child's upbringing? If gay couples can bring up well adjusted children who can make up their own minds, then the aim has been achieved. As long as the child is loved and supported, then it is fine. Afterall there are single parents, and other non-typical (as opposed to abnormal) couples.
Again the word 'un-natural' - must a kid be necessarily raised by a male and female couple? Especially these days when there are many 'un-natural' (single mom/dad, one parent dead, raised by grandparents) circumstances around?

Sagamite:


Single parenthood and whatever other non-typical ones you have not specified are reactive occurrences. There is nothing we can do about it.

But when it comes to proactive occurrences like adoption and artificial insemination then it is a ethical crime to put a child in a state nature does not intend.

Secretz:

We all know that those 'legislations' have been failing these kids. And what if the local authority urgently needed a temporary (foster) home for the children to stay in? And this home happend to be one of that that consisted of a gay couple? (the point of the gay couple being on the foster parent list in the first place is because they have had CRB clearance, their home is suitable, they have the time etc etc). What then?

oyinda.:


are you for real LMAO

Sagamite:

Single parenthood and whatever other non-typical ones you have not specified are reactive occurrences. There is nothing we can do about it.

But when it comes to proactive occurrences like adoption and artificial insemination then it is a ethical crime to put a child in a state nature does not intend.

It is even worse to see a society that will not place a child under their grandparents under the justification that they are too old at their 50s but then put that child with some pansies.

Sagamite:



No, I am a computer programme.

debosky:

It is a crime to seek for your idealised reality as the only means for bringing up children when so many have no one to look after them. As long as homosexual couples pass the tests regarded as essential to bring up a child, they should be allowed to adopt.

debosky:

Single parenthood is increasingly becoming a CHOICE and not 'reactive'.

debosky:

Who says the society will not place children with their grandparents in their 50's? Did they express desire to have the children?  

Secretz:

@ Sagamite. . .

2. Are you confirming you are homophobic (Please answer yes or no)  

Secretz:

@ Sagamite. . .

I need to clear 2 things up with you. . .

1. Are you confirming that you do not think people were born gay? (Please answer yes or no )

Secretz:

2. Are you confirming you are homophobic (Please answer yes or no)

oyinda.:

A computer program most definitely makes more sense that all the gibberish you've been spitting so far.  

So, there is nothing one can do about unemployed women who become baby factories before they get married.
but we should do something about comfortable married couples who decide to adopt children (just because they're gay).

Sagamite:


No, I am not homophobic.

oyinda.:


Homophobia:
   1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
   2. Behavior based on such a feeling

You qualify as a homophobic srry 
And thanks for agreeing that it is irrational.


why are you so worried about being labeled as homophobic anyways  lol Most homophobics and racists don't like to admit it that they are.

debosky:

Gay couples will be an option, simply because hetero ones are not sufficient or not interested enough to intervene. The 'traditional' (what you call 'normal') family has more or less been replaced by numerous variants - if a person can be single or just have a girlfriend or boyfriend and can be gay and is allowed to run the country as a president or prime minister, there is no reason why such a person will be stopped from adopting.