I support it

Sagamite:

You are a cretin!

Which poofs are already married in Nigeria? Which poof couple are already married in Saudi?

Stop taking drugs! Cretin!

This were your daft questions:

Buffoon!

Was it not poofs you were referring to? They marry poofs in Saudi!

Foooooooooooool! And you are talking about mental instability? Cretin!

My goodness you really are daft, slow and mentally unstable.
I said if they were married somewhere else and came to Nigeria like your example of polygynous people who were married in Pakistan then moved somewhere else.
Just slow down, and take your medication then take the time to read and think. Though I can understand if you can't think due to your mental instability. You may also get someone else to help you.

This was where you said it in case your Alzheimer's disease has prevented you from recalling it.

Sagamite:

. . . .
The teaser question again:

Do people that marry multiple wives in Pakistan get arrested when they get to the USA for Bigamy?

What a brainless noise making buffoon. I hope you now take the time to read and think rather than vomiting your brainless posts all over the thread.

My question is:
How as this bill improved the life of the average Nigeria ?,
Personally i feel same sex stuff is demonic but that shouldnt be priority when it comes to issues the senate should be discussing now especially when there exist more crucial issues affecting the nation,
In a matter of days they would be closing for the year and all they could do to end d year is pass a useless bill,
To me this is rubish and they have proved to us that they are just a bunch of idle pot bellied fools up in their so called senate,

if u check well, even those that placed the ban could have a few members that practice it.

[color=#990000][/color] To all of you ЪŦ r against dis u need to STFU and GTFOH, Wat on earth is wrng wit you pple This is Ƒσя our on good, mtsewww

thehomer:

My goodness you really are daft, slow and mentally unstable.
I said if they were married somewhere else and came to Nigeria like your example of polygynous people who were married in Pakistan then moved somewhere else.
Just slow down, and take your medication then take the time to read and think. Though I can understand if you can't think due to your mental instability. You may also get someone else to help you.

This was where you said it in case your Alzheimer's disease has prevented you from recalling it.

What a brainless noise making buffoon. I hope you now take the time to read and think rather than vomiting your brainless posts all over the thread.

You are a cretin!

When people practicing polygamy from anywhere in the world are applying for something of/in the UK, the UK government often states they recognise only one marriage. E.g. if a Pakistani settler wants to move his family from Pakistan to UK and apply for residency or wants to apply for welfare.

Fooool! Being with multiple women is not a crime in the UK but the UK government will only recognise one marriage.

Mugu! If you marry a 9 year old girl in Afghanistan and you take her to California and sleep with her, you will find yourself in jail.

Your daft arse is asking what will happen if someone comes to a country A and wants to commit an act that is illegal in country A because country B allows them.

And your daft arse is telling someone else to "think"?

Cretin!

Is it not a dumb question to be asking if "married" poofs go to Saudi would their marriage be recognised by the Saudis?

What do you have for brains? Cement?

This is a retrogressive step. People should not be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.  people who have this orientation  do not choose it for themselves. They just find themselves like that. unfortunately  these people cannot change their orientation. No   sane society should  punish anybody for their natural tendencies.

AkoEja:

This is a retrogressive step. People should not be discriminated against because of their intimate orientation.  people who have this orientation  do not choose it for themselves. They just find themselves like that. unfortunately  these people cannot change their orientation. No   sane society should  punish anybody for their natural tendencies.

And what makes you confident it is not a disease or dysfunction?

Discriminate ko, thatcriminate ni.

Sagamite:

You are a cretin!

When people practicing polygamy from anywhere in the world are applying for something of/in the UK, the UK government often states they recognise only one marriage. E.g. if a Pakistani settler wants to move his family from Pakistan to UK and apply for residency or wants to apply for welfare.

Fooool! Being with multiple women is not a crime in the UK but the UK government will only recognise one marriage.

Mugu! If you marry a 9 year old girl in Afghanistan and you take her to California and sleep with her, you will find yourself in jail.

Your daft arse is asking what will happen if someone comes to a country A and wants to commit an act that is illegal in country A because country B allows them.

And your daft arse is telling someone else to "think"?

Cretin!

Is it not a dumb question to be asking if "married" poofs go to Saudi would their marriage be recognised by the Saudis?

What do you have for brains? Cement?

You're lucky that being daft isn't a crime because you would probably end up with life imprisonment. Are you really unable to comprehend my simple question or see the parallels I've drawn?
You dullard, being with multiple women is a crime in many other countries and is punishable with jail time or fines just as being a homosexual and married to another gay person is illegal in Nigeria and is now punishable with jail times.
I'm sorry but if you're really this dumb and slow, then there is probably no rescuing you. I'll just let you go in your idiocy.
I hope I come across a reasonable thinking person who can respond.
Good luck to you. Just try not to wallow too deeply in your brainless idiocy.

thehomer:

You're lucky that being daft isn't a crime because you would probably end up with life imprisonment. Are you really unable to comprehend my simple question or see the parallels I've drawn?
You dullard, being with multiple women is a crime in many other countries and is punishable with jail time or fines just as being a Same-sex and married to another man-lover person is illegal in Nigeria and is now punishable with jail times.
I'm sorry but if you're really this dumb and slow, then there is probably no rescuing you. I'll just let you go in your idiocy.
I hope I come across a reasonable thinking person who can respond.
Good luck to you. Just try not to wallow too deeply in your brainless idiocy.

You are a cretin!

Your question is not simple, it is moronic.

Any person a fraction above the grade of fooool would know your poof approval in another country is not transferable to Nigeria and would not be so daft to ask the cretinous questions your are asking.

Even a foooool would know even though sleeping with multiple women is not a crime in their country does not mean they are free to do the same in another country where it is a crime. You see why I call you a "cretin"?

Dumbo! You respect the local laws of the country you go to. Your origins acceptance of an act is not an excuse at your destination. More so on such disgusting acts like homosexuality.

Cre-wetin again?

CRETIN!

Nigeria is a 'No Poof Zone'!

Oh Thank God, this is the best news so far.

At times like this, I really miss Bawomolo.


Anyway, I'm quite surprised at Sagamite's reaction to this, considering the fact he is quite an intelligent fellow with no known religious beliefs that might have engendered such high level of homophobia.

One question that homophobes - that avidly support the criminalization of homosexuality - have often failed to answer is, "What EXACTLY is the CRIME of the gäy man or the lesbiän woman?"

The sexuäl orientation of the homösexuäl man or woman may disgust us - I personally find it really distasteful, but then, that is my personal bias, perhaps owing to my religious upbringing.  But that does not give anyone any reason to discriminate against them or to deny them their fundamental rights.  Unless of course, you can establish beyond doubt that gäy people aren't humans.  More often than not, we tend to forget that their sexuality - however queer - is just one of many aspects of their humanness.

One person asked earlier about how homosexuals would procreate.  That question borders on a very shallow understanding of human sexuality.  It presupposes that sex and sexuality is all about making babies.  If that were the case, there would be no bisexuals or pansexuals.  Human sexuality is very intricate, as there are still a whole lot of things we have yet to learn about this aspect of humanity.  And as a result, I would think that the reasonable and honorable thing to do would be to simply keep an open mind towards it.

Lastly, those that think that homosexuality is a "white man's decadence" that is "corrupting" Africa may do well to do some reading about the [url=https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=history%20of%20homosexuality%20in%20africa&pbx=1&oq=history%20of%20homose&aq=1&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=sc&gs_upl=853l3130l0l4833l17l12l0l1l1l0l237l1973l1.8.3l13l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=e1397b868067491e&biw=1366&bih=667&pf=p&pdl=300]history of homosexuality in Africa[/url].  Homosexuality has always been in Africa long before the white man stepped foot on its shores.

[size=40[color=#000099][/color]pt]WALAHI IF THEY HAD SAID THEIR GENITALS WUD B AMPUTATED I SWEAR THE PEOPLE GO ARRANGE FAST[/size]

Purist:

Anyway, I'm quite surprised at Sagamite's reaction to this, considering the fact he is quite an intelligent fellow with no known religious beliefs that might have possibly engendered such high level of homophobia.

That should suggest to you my position is pure and objective thinking.

I am not swayed by religious, supernatural tosh.

I am not swayed by the illogical brainwash of a decadent West.

I am swayed by my own superior ratiocination of the issue.

Purist:

One question that homophobes - that avidly support the criminalization of homosexuality - have often failed to answer is, "What EXACTLY is the CRIME of the gäy man or the lesbiän woman?"

The sexuäl orientation of the homösexuäl man or woman may disgust us - I personally find it really distasteful, but then, that is my personal bias, perhaps owing to my religious upbringing.  But that does not give anyone any reason to discrimate against them or to deny them their fundamental rights.  Unless of course, you can establish beyond doubt that gäy people aren't humans.  More often than not, we tend to forget that their sexuality - however queer - is just one of many aspects of their humanness.

One person asked earlier about how homosexuals would procreate.  That question borders on a very shallow understanding of human sexuality.  It presupposes that sex and sexuality is all about making babies.  If that were the case, there would be no bisexuals or pansexuals.  Human sexuality is very intricate, as there are still a whole lot of things we have yet to learn about this aspect of humanity.  And as a result, I would think that the reasonable and honorable thing to do would be to simply keep an open mind towards it.

Lastly, those that think that homosexuality is a "white man's decadence" that is "corrupting" Africa may do well to do some reading about the [url=https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=history%20of%20homosexuality%20in%20africa&pbx=1&oq=history%20of%20homose&aq=1&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=sc&gs_upl=853l3130l0l4833l17l12l0l1l1l0l237l1973l1.8.3l13l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=e1397b868067491e&biw=1366&bih=667&pf=p&pdl=300]history of homosexuality in Africa[/url].  Homosexuality has always been in Africa long before the white man stepped foot on its shores.

You have to realise that in all countries, there are many things that do not harm us but disgust people and are banned based on the disgust. It is part of having a sane and balanced society. Nothing unusual or out of place. Some of such laws you are so oblivious to (because of your value biases) you don't even realise despite them being of less harm and disgust than poofterism.

I don't believe in all that argument of human sexuality. How come it is only in humans we see such spectrum? Choice because of how superior reasoning?

I have an open mind but it comes with a filter. Let them do an unrestrained and conclusive study on homosexuality and lets find a consensus on the cause before we start dragooning people to accept it despite its disgust.

If anyone wants to use the usual tosh of "consenting adults" and "privacy". Well the law forces them to keep it that way. It is so simple.

Sagamite:

You have to realise that in all countries, there are many things that do not harm us but disgust people and are banned based on the disgust. It is part of having a sane and balanced society. Nothing unusual or out of place. Some of such laws you are so oblivious to (because of your value biases) you don't even realise despite them being of less harm and disgust than poofterism.

But Sagamite, we can't be making laws merely based on how "irritable" certain things are to us.  That would be setting a dangerous precedent, don't you think?  If an action cannot be established to have any known visible/physical negative impact on another, why make it a crime?  Maybe non-religious people should be next on the Senate's hit list.  Atheists and agnostics are already considered "disgusting" in Nigeria anyway.

Sagamite:

I don't believe in all that argument of human sexuality. How come it is only in humans we see such spectrum? Choice because of how superior reasoning?

Not only in humans have we seen such.  Quite a number of animals have been shown to engage in homosexuäl acts.  Bonobos, black swans, dolphins, penguins, etc just to name a few.

Sagamite:

I have an open mind but it comes with a filter. Let them do an unrestrained and conclusive study on homosexuality and lets find a consensus on the cause before we start dragooning people to accept it despite its disgust.

In that case, wouldn't it be rather wise to maintain a neutral stance while still acknowledging their rights as the human beings that they really are?

Purist:

But Sagamite, we can't be making laws merely based on how "irritable" certain things are to us.  That would be setting a dangerous precedent, don't you think?  If an action cannot be established to have any known visible/physical negative impact on another, why make it a crime?  Maybe non-religious people should be next on the Senate's hit list.  Atheists and agnostics are already considered "disgusting" in Nigeria anyway.

The reality is that you can, it makes sense to sometimes and every country does it.

Even the vangaurds and proponents of homosexuality (the West) ban things based on their disgust. Be it polygamy, n[/i]udism, beastiality, [i]i[/i]ncest, prostitution etc.

It is part of developing a sane society or one suited to the values of the locals.

Holland (one of the proponents) recently banned the animal killing rituals that create halal meat. Fundamentally, they are denying muslims their religious rights for some lame animal rights.

Purist:

Not only in humans have we seen such.  Quite a number of animals have been shown to engage in homosexuäl acts.  Bonobos, black swans, dolphins, penguins, etc just to name a few.

None of those animals have been proven to be [i]h[/i]omosexual animals. Homosexuäl acts is not proof of homosexuality.

Purist:

In that case, wouldn't it be rather wise to maintain a neutral stance while still acknowledging their rights as the human beings that they really are?

Not really.

Not when there are powerful forces trying to force you at all cost to accept the filth and are succeeding evidently from some of the lame arguments you see people regurgitate and the rapid, senseless changes of laws you see in the West to institutionalise homosexuality.

Not when they are attempting to force laws that will engrain it in society, brainwash people and develop an environment that results in contumely if one has an opposing/questioning view.

Not when once these laws are established it is virtually impossible to reverse them due to multiple reasons (e.g. sentiments, brainwash, resistance to change, inability to comprehend new dialectics).

As Charlton Heston historically said once: "[i]I’ll tell you why: Cultural warfare!". It has reached an insidious and stealth warfare level, and I am aware enough to spot it.

Another fact: Most of these people that claim "open-mind" are actually extremely closed-minded people. No matter how much fact you put forward to rubbish their arguments, they stick with the same position as long as it appears "liberal" and "funky". They just like the tag of "open-mind" because they think it makes them look modern, enlightened and progressive.

I am modern, obviously enlightened and I keep my progress to positive things, not negative.

can someone explain to me why you care who your neighbor marries? does it cause you to go to hell? nope. if you want to claim dogma and say it will send them to hell how does it affect you? you are worried your children will become gay, sorry its not a learned behavior but genetic. if you are one to claim science is evil and fake then you can only blame yourselves that your children are "corrupted" and taught love has no color or gender instead of growing up closed minded like yourself

gijaney:

can someone explain to me why you care who your neighbor marries? does it cause you to go to hell? nope. if you want to claim dogma and say it will send them to hell how does it affect you? you are worried your children will become man-lover, sorry its not a learned behavior but genetic. if you are one to claim science is evil and fake then you can only blame yourselves that your children are "corrupted" and taught love has no color or gender instead of growing up closed minded like yourself

Another moronic contribution.

We are social animals. You are part of the society you live in. You should care what happens in that society.

That is how sanity is infused in societies, not by ignoring it.

You see one silly, simpleton argument after another.

to all gays and lesbians, i love you all. but i hate homosexuality because it's an abomination before god. if you ask jesus in prayer, he'll save you from the power of sin.

@Sagamite,

I have not the strength to go back and forth with you on this issue, seeing that you hold your opinions on it highly.  So I guess we may just agree to disagree.  My only grouse here is what seems to be a denial of their fundamental human rights.  "Human rights are 'commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being'."  Gäy people are human beings who cause no harm by their virtue of being gäy, and should be treated as such.

One question though:  If the gäy genes are eventually conclusively found to be present in humans, in other words, if homosexuality is eventually proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be natural, would you change your perception about gäy people?

Purist:

@Sagamite,

I have not the strength to go back and forth with you on this issue, seeing that you hold your opinions on it highly.  So I guess we may just agree to disagree.  My only grouse here is what seems to be a denial of their fundamental human rights.  "Human rights are 'commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being'."  Gäy people are human beings who cause no harm by their virtue of being gäy, and should be treated as such.

One question though:  If the gäy genes are eventually conclusively found to be present in humans, in other words, if homosexuality is eventually proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be natural, would you change your perception about gäy people?

That is where you erred.

It is not a fundamental human right.

Those are the kinds of erroneous, misleading messages being circulated by the powerful proponent of homosexuality. That is why I said it is a cultural warfare.

All these kids hear words like that and they think it is only when they scream on behalf of homosexuality that they are progressive, urban, modern, enlightened and sensible.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

And those lists are effectively people's opinions.

Sagamite:

Another moronic contribution.

We are social animals. You are part of the society you live in. You should care what happens in that society.

That is how sanity is infused in societies, not by ignoring it.

You see one silly, simpleton argument after another.

being social animals is one thing but being consumed by what your neighbor is doing is pathetic to say the least. by your argument we should be enthralled by what some one else eats, what shampoo they use, what color their carpet vs paint is.

there is no sanity in our society and wont be until people learn to mind their own and live together as social animals rather then tearing into each other

As a moderator, I can see your post that was blocked by the spambot. I am assuming the stewpid thing as banned you as well so I will be passing it on so they unban both.

But I would answer it.

It is clear there that the document does not define marriage, so what makes you think it includes homosexuality?

So why is [i]i[/i]ncest and polygamy banned in the West then? The whole rules qualifies them. Is that an abuse of fundamental human rights too?

What is "full age" in that declaration article?

Yes, I ignored your question for now because I wanted to deal with the first part first.

gijaney:

being social animals is one thing but being consumed by what your neighbor is doing is pathetic to say the least. by your argument we should be enthralled by what some one else eats, what shampoo they use, what color their carpet vs paint is.

there is no sanity in our society and wont be until people learn to mind their own and live together as social animals rather then tearing into each other

You are a cretin!

Stop bringing cretinous arguments my way.

LET US NOT FORGET THAT HOMOSEXUALITY WAS ONE OF THE REASONS GOD DESTROYED THE LAND AND PEOPLE OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH
GENESIS 19:5;
GENESIS 19:24-25;
WHAT WE ARE ENJOYING NOW IS THAT WE ARE IN THE ERA OF GRACE AND NOT THE ERA OF LAW WHEN GOD USED TO DEAL WITH HIS CHILDREN IMMEDIATELY THEY SIN AGAINST HIM,
GOD IS WATCHING EVERYTHING FOR A DISTANCE AND WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT, HE WILL ACT,

@Sagamite

Most of your reasons and terms 'stink' of subjectivity. Whats disgust? Or sanity? Or normalcy?

Humans are unique and different in their ways, its not the society's job to create a conformists but regulate relations and safety. Each individual defines himself or herself, society just provides the bond btw individuals.

Thus minorities, by the fact of their culture, racial background, sexual preferences ought to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

@amtired

Jesus has the free will to make heaven gay free

Kay 17:

@Sagamite

Most of your reasons and terms 'stink' of subjectivity. Whats disgust? Or sanity? Or normalcy?

Humans are unique and different in their ways, its not the society's job to create a conformists but regulate relations and safety. Each individual defines himself or herself, society just provides the bond btw individuals.

Thus minorities, by the fact of their culture, racial background, intimate preferences ought to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

@amtired

Jesus has the free will to make heaven man-lover free

And your reasons for accepting the filth does not "stink" of subjectivity?

"Humans are unique and different in their ways blah blah blah", so will you accept paedophilia is a [i]s[/i]exual orientation that is part of these "unique and different ways"? Will that "minority" be respected even if not allowed? Or is all that rubbish you put together just going to apply selectively to the minority you want to support to be funky and "modern"?

It irritates me when people chat shyt like this and spray it with perfume of grammar and then think it looks nice or makes sense. Shyt is shyt!

Pls could u at least refute what i said?

Kay 17:

Pls could u at least refute what i said?

Not when you are chatting at that level. I would be wasting my time.

I am an effing good judge of character and I can tell you are the typical example of the people I am describing when I said this.

Sagamite:

Another fact: Most of these people that claim "open-mind" are actually extremely closed-minded people. No matter how much fact you put forward to rubbish their arguments, they stick with the same position as long as it appears "liberal" and "funky". They just like the tag of "open-mind" because they think it makes them look modern, enlightened and progressive.

I can tell that purely by the funky, unratiocinated rubbish you put forth above.

Kay 17:

Pls could u at least refute what i said?

hunny he doesnt refute what people say.  he hides behind dogma and insults those who disagree