Awesome.

Name-calling. Always the last resort of those who lack any substance to contribute.

Thank you. Your reactions continue to reward me with validation.

Hilarious.

Just how funny is it that after I legitimately trounced this Sagamite character's every attempt at a rational argument, his only recourse has been to abdicate reason altogether and turn this page into a propaganda update sheet full of slurs, gnashing and wailing of teeth!

I thought the one about Germany was the most idiotic thing I had ever read (as if German citizenship is the *right* of the applicant, and as if Germany *doesn't* have the right to refuse citizenship to elements whose values they feel clash with the structure of their established society. They're not forcing anybody to "accept gays". . . You're free to hate gays all you like, just go do it somewhere else! Is it by force that you live in Germany?)

however. . . the brain-dead rantings on this latest story actually trump that!

I mean, how funny is it to see Sagamite, who I've seen bashing and ridiculing religious people, suddenly clutching at his pearls and agonizing about religious freedom like most hypocrites and hate-mongers?

Of course the B&B owners lost the case. They argued that they didn't want to take in the gay guys because they were unmarried, not because they were gay. And they were able to prove that the law recognized them as married. Simple.

Sure, the B&B owners have the right to religious freedom but when you are running a public establishment, you can't enforce your religious beliefs upon others (unless you are advertising your hotel as a Christian lodging house so people can know that if you're not Christian, you probably don't want to go there).

I love how hysterical all this stuff makes Sagamite, anyway. It's always great when the blowhard windbags expose themselves as empty vessels.

*sips tea*

londoner:

There has already been a gay church in Yorubaland for the past three years. Opened by a Mr. Jide Macauley.

http://community.africanloft.com/_Nigeria-Gay-Church-House-of-Rainbow-/video/275195/4392.html


It was posted on Nairaland at the time, but nobody tried to link it to tribe or the fact it was in Yorubaland, interesting.

Yeah, I had mentioned that before, londoner. Thanks for the link!

. . .

actually . . . never mind.

Sagamite:

Me? Alias? 

Have some guts even if you lack comprehension.

Okay then. Get to the point and stop talking in circles.

What exactly do you want to know from/about me?

And why is it relevant?

Sagamite:

In your dreams it will happen in Nigeria in your lifetime.

Boko Haram! Adeboye! It aint gonna happen.

I repeat, have some guts.

Dude. This is my ONLY screen name on Nairaland.

I had another screen name for years before, but the site admin saw fit to ban me. So I was forced to register a new name.

I'm not sure why that is even important to you . . . It seems to be a diversionary tactic; since you have nothing of substance to say, you choose to make much ado over whether or not I am using my "real" screen name on a site where virtually everyone (including yourself) is using an alias anyway.

My friend, if it makes you feel better I can even tell you the name on my birth certificate. After all, I have nothing to hide and I stand proudly by any and every thing I say here.

Alas, my "real" name really has nothing to do with anything. Either you make a point or you do not.

You didn't.

Now cry.

Sagamite:

Not in Nigeria!

And have some guts to use your real NL name to debate with me.

Not in Nigeria . . . yet. But it will happen in due time. Just wait and see.

And I will laugh as you cry about it.

And what, pray tell, do you assume is my "real" NL name? And why is it important to you?

Anyway, nobody is "debating" with you . . . Last time I tried to debate with you, you proved woefully ill-equipped to hang.

Sagamite:

This is the kind of disgusting filth we will have if we give faggotism an inch.

Too late . . . It's already happening.

Cry about it.

otheloze:

so are u saying there is no God,any way my post wasnt meant for unreasonable ppl like u who try to make baseless point, u said i am religious even though i spent more time talking about science, why have u ignored the fact that every thing exists based on laws.

Replying u is a share waste of my precious time u can bleep all the backside for all i care

Then why are you even replying?

You didn't say jack about science, you talked a whole bunch of religious gibberish and then you have the nerve to call me ME unreasonable?

LOL

otheloze:

stop be naive and read without being biased i consistently maintained in me message , about our future generation, and if u care so much about population growth , why dont you and your pervert gang jump of a condo, i think u would be doing humanity a great deal

You didn't maintain anything. You made reference to the Bible an the Koran and ended your message on a strongly religious note about an affront to God.

You're religious. Fine. . . Not a problem. But don't try to sell your religious propaganda under the guise of rational thought.

. . .

otheloze:

The only defense most gays but up is comparing it, to other form of evil, which doesnt justify the act,

Actually, your argument is invalidated fairly easily.

Gays make up less than 5% of the world population, and since they cannot reproduce per se, it's not as if they are going to end up out-breeding straight people. Thus, gays pose no significant threat whatsoever to the continuation of the species.

In any case, we're already on the verge of dangerous overpopulation as it is, so if anything, we should be grateful for people who opt not to multiply.

People like you who push the whole "we need to multiply/unborn lives are sacred/anti-abortion" agenda tend to be really short-sighted and hypocritical. You're proselytizing about the evils of fornication, drunkenness and all, but you either don't think or don't give a damn about how we are taxing our resources, or about the consequences of people bearing more children than they can realistically care for all in the name of "continuation of the species." You don't care about the terrible living standards this contributes to, or about how it feeds crime and suffering.

Your point of view is faith-based, anyway. So it's not all that interesting to me. But don't try to pretend that you are being rational by paying lip-service to "setting religion aside"; you haven't set anything aside.

It's always the loser who has to yell "YOU LOSE!!!" when they actually don't have a case.

They feel they can use volume and repetition to achieve what they failed to do by reason.

To me, this is not about "winning" and "losing" per se, but Sagamite's regression into childish antics assures me that I probably DID "win."

*yay for me*

Uyi Iredia:



*1 >>> neither did i expressly denote, that you said, that disagreement with homos equates to homophobia >>> however your statement that it can be argued is >>> shall i say ?  an interesting slant

*2 >>> HETEROPHOBIC >>> checkmate



*3 >>> it is about spuriously dubbing others homophobes as well >>> i do not appreciate an unwanton use of the term

I'm sorry . . . I find it really hard to understand your grammar.

re: 1. I don't know what kind of ambiguous games you are playing but you went out of your way to call me a "heterophobe" and now you are admitting that I said nothing that could be considered "heterophobic" but something something something about "an interesting slant"?

Dude, either I said it or I did not. If you say I did, then show me where. If I did not, then withdraw your statement.

2. I have no idea what that GIF has to do with me.

3. I did not make any "unwanton" use of the term "homophobe." Sagamite is one and  I described him as such.

Sagamite:

The problem with this deviant-lover is . . . . . .

English: Comprehension! French: Comprehension! Espana: Comprensión! Italiano: Comprensione! Portuguesa: Compreensão! Duetsch: Erfassen! Yoruba: Imöyeòye!

I actually kinda like your use of "deviant-lover" because it evokes the classic slur "n i g g e r-lover" which was used by old-school racists against anyone who disagreed with their beliefs (which, by the way, they also argued were based on the "natural" order of the species).

Like I said you have been a very rewarding specimen in my examination of the irrational nature of bigotry. . . Very rewarding indeed!

Uyi Iredia:

chop knuckle >>> precisely the reason why i retort with the word heterophobic >>> a taste of one's medicine is apropos on this wise

Oh!!!! It crushes my soul that you called me heterophobic! How shall I go on living?

Uyi Iredia:

[b]
*1 >>> um ! >>> this is what i was referring to as homophobic

care to enlighten me on this evidence >>> b'cos i suppose you came here with the preconcieved notion that disagreement to homosexuality is synonymous with homophobia

*2 >>> long story  

I didn't say that disagreement with homosexuality was homophobia (though it could be argued that it is).

In any case, Sagamite DID open express many symptoms of homophobia:

- visceral, irrational revulsion? CHECK
- use of disparaging epithets such as f a g g o t? CHECK
- call for criminalization? CHECK
- incessant ridicule, especially aimed at another person he has chosen to label as gay (Mobinga)? CHECK
- actual FEAR that homosexuals will take over society and wipe out his way of life? CHECK!

Yeah, Sagamite is an out-and-out homophobe and seemingly proud of it. So what is the problem when I call him one?

How does that translate to me being a "heterophobe"? What bad thing have I said about heterosexuals?

Sagamite:

Lets go through this issue of your lack of comprehension for the last time. It is the main reason it is tooo pointless debating with you, the lack of logic does not help too.

When someone says:

When someone says "I guess", a guess is an uncertain assumption, not an accusation/assertion that something has been done.

LOL! What a copout! So why bother even saying it at all when you know you won't be able to defend it?

Is that supposed to be some lame attempt at wit? If so, I guess I just don't understand that kind of joke. Humor is usually effective when it contains a reference to something that is actually REAL and not all-out fabrications.

It's like you can't get enough of lying. I enjoy it, though . . . It's nice seeing you have to resort to the most baseless taunts when you have nothing else to say.

Uyi Iredia:

SMH at the heterophobic comment made by joeppine >>> it reminds me of how a sufferhead mod in in an Opera discussion forum >>> sent messages to all people who advocated against gay marriage (my humble self as well) telling them that their 'homophobic comments' won't be accepted

Um. . . WHAT "heterophobic" comment did I make, pray tell?

And by the way, when have I begrudged anybody expressing their homophobic views?

I've not told Sagamite or anybody else that they are not free to express their homophobia. At no point did I tell him or anybody else that they HAVE to like homosexuals.

All I said is that homophobia is a personal problem, for the most part. And it is their problem to deal with.

What's the problem there?

Sagamite:

Hmm, I guess as confident as you were and as airtight as your conclusions that you got me to (1) shift my argument from natural to dysfunctional  and (2) to switch my bases of condemnation of faggotism from natural to physical damage  . Very airtight indeed! We all say how long those lasted despite your confidence. 

LOL It's true, though . . . You did go scrambling all over the place trying to justify your irrational stance.

At least I am satisfied that in the end you have been forced to take refuge mostly in the explanation that it is "disgusting." Which of course remains a personal problem.

Sagamite:

You mean like the fact animals do not take spliff that we humans naturally take?

That would be an acute jab at me if I had actually ever even said that. But seeing as I never did, it ends up being a flaccid poke meant to save face.

It makes me feel good when you have to resort to fabrications in order to strike back at me. It shows that you have exhausted all legitimate arguments.

Sagamite:

And so? So the law can not be based on subjective morality? 

It could be. But once it is codified into law, it becomes objective. There have been laws that were written based on subjective perceptions and hysteria, but they almost always end up being re-examined and repealed in saner times, once cooler heads can prevail.

And regardless, I am not the one who wrote the law, so even if the consent thing were subjective morality, it is not MY subjective morality. (Though of course, if a rational person takes even a few seconds to think about it, the consent issue is extremely pragmatic.)

Sagamite:

I wonder the why it is against the law to walk unclothed in public.  Logic!

LOL I could tell you why, but why should I? You only hear what you want to hear anyway!

Sagamite:

I guess lack of comprehension will confuse you in thinking that my stating we should ban something that is unnatural implies we should accept anything that is natural.   Comprehension.

Again, I dare you to find ONE quote where I said such a thing.

Go ahead, liar. Show me where I said this.

You're making yourself look REALLY bad here.

(Granted, I think we BOTH look kind of foolish going back and forth forever over here like this . . .  But at least I'm not lying and saying things, then turning around to pretend I didn't say them and blaming it on someone else's "comprehension problems" when the very clear statements are here on the public record! I guess I can take comfort in that . . . )

Sagamite:

If you expect me to respond to all these after your comprehension issues you must be joking. I haven't got time to waste.

You have agreed homosexuality is unnatural. So since it is unnatural, it is reasonable to say something is dysfunctional about homosexuals. This means they need to be cured, not accepted.

Immorality is subjective no doubt. Just like you find consent as a moral requirement for sex.  The good thing is that majority of people find homosexuality immoral AND disgusting. Combined with knowing it is dsyfunctional, that is enough grounds to ban it.

For one, we ban public nudity based on immorality and disgust, despite it being natural. So why should we not ban an act that is all that but unnatural. Logic!

That's okay . . . I don't expect you to respond because I am quite confident that the argument I presented is airtight, despite your vain flailing away at my supposed "comprehension problems." I've sussed the kind of character you are and I don't expect you to be the kind of person to concede even the slightest defeat. And it's all well and good because (as you might tell from the tone of my last post), I had framed it to more or less be my closing statement as I really have lost interest in continuing going back and forth with you.

But just for kicks, I'll point out more of your baseless and nonsensical statements on the way out:

1. As I said numerous times, I agreed to accept that homosexuality is "unnatural" strictly for the purposes of this discussion because I was more interested in hearing you explain why unnatural = immoral. Had we made any progress (ie had you been a more honest and clear-thinking person) I would have furnished a rack of examples to counter the idea that it IS "unnatural." But unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), we never even got to the point where that was necessary.

2. The concept of consent as the bone of contention in sexual morality is not a subjective issue. IT IS THE LAW.

3. Pointing out that nudity is banned despite being natural is not doing your case any favors. You'll realize that you are actually scoring a point in my column by bringing that up if you take a moment to reflect upon it. But alas, I tire of doing your thinking for you, so I'll let you figure it out on your own.

Well, Sagamite. . . I thank you for contributing some crucial strengthening evidence to my theory about homophobia. It's much appreciated.

Until our paths cross again . . .

Sagamite:

So I should you a link about condemning homosexuality because I believed it is not natural. You then made a headline statement: "Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural!" that you wanted to challenge.

Just so we're straight (pun not intended): *I* did not make that headline statement. I quoted it directly from YOUR post that you so proudly linked for my illumination.

Sagamite:

And you now went with a statement " There are a whole host of social behaviors humans engage in on a regular basis that could be characterized as "unnatural" because they don't occur in the animal kingdom. For instance, the drive to alter the consciousness with substances such as pharmaceuticals or even just alcohol." And you now wonder why I concluded that that you regard drug taking as a natural context of comparison despite putting unnatural in quotation marks?

Wow. Your English comprehension is THAT poor, dude?

There is absolutely NOTHING in the above statement that indicates that consumption of drugs and alcohol are "natural." The example was specifically proffered to illustrate that humans engage in all kinds of "unnatural" behaviors not seen in the animal kingdom and yet they are not criminalized strictly on that basis.

You'd have to be extremely desperate, with an overactive imagination and awe-inspiring flexibility to s-t-r-e-t-c-h to try to point out the fact that I put "unnatural" in quotes and use that to argue that I somehow meant the opposite of what I clearly said.

In fact, if you look at all my replies throughout this discussion, I have almost ALWAYS put both "natural" and "unnatural" in quotation marks. Why? Because it was a term that YOU introduced and one that YOU are most concerned about. I said that I would accept it for the sake of the argument, but it wasn't something I particularly care about. That's why it's in quotes.

Sagamite:

You even went ahead and said:

This is a place where you substittuted natural with immoral, so here you are admitting you used the behaviours as examples of natural.

LOL You are sounding very, very desperate, my guy.

Seriously. This is the English language that we are both speaking (or typing). Let's examine the statement you quoted from me line by line.

Quoth I: You said homosexuality was immoral because it supposedly (and I have not even gotten around to unpacking that particular assumption) does not occur in the animal kingdom.

Yes, you did say this. I know you are about to complain about my substitution, but I'll deal with that further down the line.

Quoth I: I pointed out that other behaviors do not occur in the animal kingdom, and as such, must be immoral by your definition.

Yes. Given that your main explanation for the immorality of the homosexuality was its "unnaturality" (ie the fact that it does not occur in the animal kingdom), I was interested in learning if EVERY "unnatural" behavior that does not occur in the animal kingdom (eg drinking alcohol) was automatically immoral.

Quoth I: It's simple logic and I believe you know what I am talking about.

Yes. It IS quite simple. I think the reasoning here is very transparent. You may quibble with the potency of the analogy I used (I'll willingly grant that it probably was not the most forceful example), but you'd have to be living in some place where Dyslexia is the native language to somehow derive the exact opposite of what I said from the above sentences.

Sagamite:

You were challenging my that why should my perception of morality count since it is subjective, so I am assuming since everyone's moral barometer is subjective then anyone's perception of morality can be challenged and not stand, so why would you advocate morality when it is a subjectivity you challenge.

God . . . Do I have to say everything twice and thrice?

I said that most of our morals are derived from pragmatic concerns, based primarily on the principle of preventing individuals inflicting harm upon each other.

I then asked you how two guys sucking each other's d i c ks were harming anybody.

I am SURE I said this before. How many more times must I say it before it penetrates?

People harming each other = pragmatic concern

Sagamite crying because men kissing grosses him out = subjective problem

*shrug*

Sagamite:

Are you saying men do not want the women they mate with to be exclusive to them?

Please read again if you have to. I said it pretty plainly that men do demand exclusivity as a trade-off because if he is going to invest his time and resources to raising the offspring, he wants to be sure they are his.

I hate having to repeat myself unnecessarily.

Sagamite:

And billions more majority like me.

Bollocks!!!

Not only to me, to billions of other peole.

Billions of people also believed that negroes were 3/5 human, if they were human at all.

The fact that a lot of people believed that doesn't make the belief any less irrational.

I believe that form of argument is commonly called argumentum ad populum. And it is listed as a fallacy.

And before you try to suggest that I was the one who introduced this fallacy by citing to the high percentage of American soldiers who are unperturbed by homosexuality, take note that I did not do so as an attempt to appeal to a majority. I did it to prove that your suggestion that the disgust for homosexuality was universal. Whether the anti-gays outnumber the pro-gays or vice versa, the bottom line is that there IS disagreement on the issue and your suggestion that it is disgusting to everybody is false.

Sagamite:

Homosexuality is disgusting to a vast majority of people. It is naturally repulsive.

Even majority of the pro-gay supporters that ARE a MINORITY will feel repulsed if shown a gay po*rn. They will feel DISGUSTED.

So using people that have been dragooned repeatedly by society to accept homosexuality and in fear of contumely is quite poor.

Just as you have been dragooned repeatedly by society to eschew homosexuality. If from the time you were an infant you had been exposed to the sight of gay s e x without anybody telling you it was wrong, you would not have this visceral abhorrence for it. Such reactions are the result of nurture, not nature as nobody is born with such prejudices. Hell, when kids first view *heterosexual* intercourse, they tend to find it disgusting and/or terrifying until socialization teaches them that it is something they should look forward to experiencing.

Anyway, whether or not you find the visual of gay congress disgusting is irrelevant, unless we are arguing for gay p o r n  to be beamed into every home, or maybe if gay guys were having s e x in the main road.

Nobody is forcing you to THINK about gay s e x. If you see two guys holding hands and your mind immediately visualizes them b u t t f u c k i n g, then perhaps you should ask yourself some serious questions about yourself!

Sagamite:

Here we go again with this lack of comprehension.

It appears you missed the point of the quotation marks I used, which was suppose to be a mock of rebuttal of morality. The joke is on you, mate, as you fail to comprehend again.

Paedophilia is as repugnant as homosexuality to most people around the world, as our sense tells us it is unnatural, just like faggotism.

No, I didn't miss anything. But your attempt at mockery still scored a point for me and I felt obliged to acknowledge it.

Pedophilia IS disgusting to people all over the world, but the *definition* of pedophilia varies from society to society.

Where I live (in the United States), a grown man sleeping with a 15-year-old girl is a disgusting, immoral and very illegal case of pedophilia.

If I go to Japan, a grown man sleeping with a 15-year-old might be a bit unseemly, but not as disgusting, immoral and not definitely illegal because the age of consent there is actually 13 years.

In fact, until the 20th century, the age of consent in many European countries was also 13. Back then, having sex with a 14-year-old was not considered particularly revolting or "unnatural" but when the law changed, it became "disgusting."

My point here is that a lot of the "disgust" and "revulsion" is not "natural" . . . It is the result of nurture not nature. If it were purely a natural instinct rather than the result of social conditioning, then the level of "disgust" would have remained constant over time, irrespective of amendments in society's laws.

Sagamite:

Lol! I am all over the place with my argument? Says who? Your comprehension?

Yep. You are all over the place. You give the impression of a drowning man grasping at straws. To wit:

Sagamite:

I only raise physical damage to highlight similarities with paedophilia that you wanted banned because of physical damage. My premise has and still stands on unnaturality not physical damage if you can comprehend that.

The fact that you even attempted to erect that argument was the point at which you showed your hand and revealed how desperate you really were to "win" at any cost. You really should not have even bothered with the physical damage argument because it came off disingenuous, like you were seeking any port in a storm.

Especially since that argument was so poorly thought-out to begin with.

I had to enjoy a good hearty laugh over that one. But still . . . whatever. I'm open to striking that digression from the record and focusing solely on the "unnaturality," which you have STILL failed to demonstrate is equal to immorality.

*waits*

Sagamite:

Lesbianism also fails it. Consent can kiss my backside as long as tha act is unnatural.

LOL Yes. I still wait patiently for some sort of concrete case--ANY evidence whatsoever--to elevate such statements beyond the realm of personal distaste.

Sagamite:

Somehow your comprehension has mislead you to think I am against it because of physical damage.  And you still don't agree with me you have comprehension problems? Unfuckingbelievable.

I can bet when you reply again, I will have to highlight your comprehension problems.

LMAO! Dude, YOU SAID IT! Is this something that I fabricated? YOU attempted to mount an argument based on physical damage, and so I addressed it and now you're mad at me for not pretending that you didn't say something that you clearly did?

Why did you even bother bringing up the physical damage angle if you were unprepared to stand by and it and defend it later?

What a flip-flopper.

*turns to audience* You see why I said he is looking desperate?

Sagamite:
 
So you just threw a conjecture for no reason. 

Nah . . . I threw it out because I was really interested in understanding the non-religious case against homosexuality.

Like, if someone comes to me and says "I believe homosexuality is immoral because I do not think for myself and I take my directives from a Holy Book tells me that God is sending all these people to a blistering Inferno."

If someone tells me that, I can accept it. I may not agree with them but at least I understand where they're coming from.

But I just don't understand how any thinking person who lives a life guided by reason would come to the same conclusion. . . Unless of course it is simply a case of personal prejudice.

(Full disclosure: I was once a virulent homophobe myself--I mean, I actually went for far as to enact violence upon suspected homosexuals. But I was mostly guided by faith at the time. As I distanced myself more and more from religion and moved in the direction of humanism, I found that my anti-gay stance became harder and harder to sustain on a logical level. So yeah, I'm interested in understanding the cognitive processes of secular homophobes.

I'm quite gratified to say that so far you have confirmed my suspicions, as you've been unable to build much of a case beyond basic personal disgust.)

Sagamite:

If I said someone is human because he is a man.

As a human, there must be blood in the veins.

Does that mean you can go ahead and say: If there is blood in the veins, then he is a man?

Women have blood in their veins, animals have blood in their veins.

Nope! That is a completely different flavor of argument, and I'll tell you why:

You first said: Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural.

Just so that you will not claim that I fabricated this statement, it can be seen here under your byline: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-279591.1024.html#msg4859553

In your statement above, the unnaturality defines the immorality. For the purposes of your argument, unnatural = immoral.

Okay. We agree on that, right? Let's move forward,

So. In the same post linked above, the very next statement from you make a qualifying statement, offering a definition of "unnatural." Don't bother getting up. . . I'll copy and paste the quote right here:

Sagamite:
How is it unnatural?

Point A: There is nothing we do naturally or occurs to us naturally that does not exist in the same fashion in the Animal Kingdom.

Homosexuality cannot be natural if it does not exist in the same fashion in animal kingdom, hence homosexuals are not born gay (lest we forget, the major premisal question of the thread). It is either a choice or a malfunction in the human reproduction process that needs to be corrected, not accepted. Examples of natural occurences in humans that occurs in animal kingdom are birth defects, dwarfism, albinoism, race etc which one can easily get the evidence for through the web (Thank God, this is not the 80s when information is hard to get and facts can not be backed up except one is in the field).

So now we have our working definition of "unnatural" (for the purposes of this discussion). To summarize the paragraph above: unnatural = it does not occur in the Animal Kingdom

Are you still with me? I'll repeat it just in case:

unnatural = it does not occur in the Animal Kingdom

Now please note in your quote above that you offered the "it does not occur in the Animal Kingdom" specifically as the reason for homosexuality's "unnaturality." I do not know whether this definition is meant to describe EVERYTHING in the world that is "unnatural," but it is certainly what makes homosexuality in particular "unnatural," right?

So here's what we have:

Homosexuality is immoral (A) because it is unnatural. (B)

A because B.

Then the next statement defines B:

It is unnatural (B) because it does not occur in the Animal Kingdom. (C)

B because C.

We also accept the above statement to be true.

Let's try applying the same paradigm to the flawed argument you tried to attribute to me above:

He is human (A) because he is a man. (B)

A because B.

That statement is true. So let's go to our qualifying statement to give us a definition of B

He is a man because he has blood in his veins.

Okay,  That doesn't work. Having blood in the veins is not a sufficient definition because not only men have blood in their veins. Let's try using "has blood in his veins" to define A instead:

He is human because he has blood in his veins.

Nope. Still doesn't work. The premise is inherently flawed, so any conclusion drawn from it will be similarly flawed . . . unlike your "Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural" and "it is unnatural because it does not occur in the Animal Kingdom," both of which we have accepted to be true.

So no. Your example above has no resemblance whatsoever to my argument. Moving on . . .

Let's look at our qualifying statement again:

It is unnatural (B) because it does not occur in the Animal Kingdom (C)

As we said before, this statement provides us with a definition for "unnatural"

"unnatural" (B) = "that which does not occur in the Animal Kingdom" (C)

Since C is a definition or explanation of B, they essentially share the same value:

Q. What does "unnatural" mean?
A. That which does not occur in the Animal Kingdom.

Q. What's the word for that which does not occur in the Animal Kingdom?
A. "Unnatural"

Therefore, B = C

Taking that back to our original statement:

Homosexuality is immoral (A) because it is unnatural. (B)

A because B.

But we have ascertained that B = C

Therefore, A because B has the same value as A because C.

Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural.
(And what does "unnatural" mean? - That which does not occur in the Animal Kingdom.)

Homosexuality is immoral because it is (that which does not occur in the Animal Kingdom).

So homosexuality is immoral because it does not occur in the Animal Kingdom.

Sound argument.

To be honest, all of this stuff is so basic that I even feel somewhat embarrassed to have to be breaking this down like this and explaining it to you. I refuse to believe that you don't get this very rudimentary concept. You have GOT to be pretending just to be stubborn. *smh*

Sagamite:

If you can quote what I said EASILY, it will make sense not to substitute with what pleases your argument. Not everything immoral is based on being in the animal would, there are subsets that are outside that scope.

That's the thing: I never implied anything like that.

I didn't say that EVERYTHING that is immoral is based on being or not being in the animal world, but you gave "unnaturality" as the *specific* reason for it being immoral, and its absence in the animal world as the *specific* reason for it being unnatural.

Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural and it is unnatural because it does not exist in the Animal Kingdom.

I should not that the use of because in the syntactical representation of this equation represents causality and thus, a directionality to the series. A is caused by B which is caused by C. If you were to run the series in the opposite direction, you reverse the causality, thus "because" is replaced with  "therefore":

It does not occur in the Animal Kingdom, therefore it is unnatural, therefore it is immoral.

Nowhere did I say that everything immoral must be unnatural . . . but I DID say that (according to your logic) anything unnatural must be immoral.

It is immoral because it is unnatural. It is unnatural, therefore it is immoral.

Socrates is a man. But not all men are Socrates.

I made this EXTREMELY clear more than once, and I truly believe you cannot be so thick as to not understand it, so I have to assume that you are playing silly games here.

If you persist on insisting that I said otherwise, please reproduce the exact quote where I did so.

If you wish to amend or clarify your original statement about the relationship between unnaturality and immorality, be my guest; I will then adjust my own accordingly. But this IS what you have said.

Sagamite:

I have given a position right from the word GO and have not changed it, they is no evidence I changed it, I only made an instantaneous comparison. The only problem is your dsyfunctional comprehension turned it upside down again.

The primary question I asked you was "Does unnaturality automatically equate to immorality?"

You never successfully answered it and instead gradually shifted emphasis to how "disgusting" it is . . . "Disgusting" does not equal "immoral."

Unless, of course, you want to introduce a NEW transitive relationship for you to deny later. . . ?

This is getting tiresome.

I won't reply to your comments about the definition of "natural" at the bottom because it's not relevant. I've already agreed to accept that homosexuality is "unnatural" as a valid premise. All that remains is for you to demonstrate how that equates to immorality.

I shan't hold my breath waiting, though . . .

Sagamite:

No, it is relevant as I am trying to highlight your logic process, which was something you were harping about earlier.

Lets go through this in a historical manner so you can see how your logical reasoning erred.

Your attempt to "logically" disprove my argument about that there is nothing natural that we do that is not found in the animal world was to highlight that we take psychedelic stuff and animals do not. That in itself was as ridiculous a conception as the chewing gum stuff since taking drugs is not natural thing/urge, but I exercised some patience because I knew it will not stand up to scrutiny. I wondered how YOU that is harping about my logical reasoning will classify taking drugs as a "NATURAL" thing, it was just plain laughable but I thought why not toy around abit.

Sweating is natural, affection is natural, Jealousy is natural, shyting (sorry for my vulgarity) is natural, if taking drugs is natural, we will all be doing it. That is just proof about how I said you lack comprehension about complex things, but honestly, I am being nice here by making such a statement, as discerning what is natural is not that complex.

It is curious that you should be taking shots at my comprehension, because at this point I am seriously starting to question your on ability to read and comprehend simple statements. I have to do this because if I do not do that, my only recourse will be to question your honesty and I want to believe that I am interacting with a person of truth and honor. But I am really getting tired of you attributing to me statements and stances that I never made.

Let's look at the original quote by me:

joepineapp:
The notion that there exists an inherent link between that which is moral and that which is natural is a bit of a logical leap, is it not? There are a whole host of social behaviors humans engage in on a regular basis that could be characterized as "unnatural" because they don't occur in the animal kingdom. For instance, the drive to alter the consciousness with substances such as pharmaceuticals or even just alcohol.

Now you yourself may not drink alcohol, but would you similarly argue that it is immoral and thus worthy of criminalization strictly on those grounds?

As you can see, I stated from the outset that drinking alcohol or taking drugs was NOT "natural."

That point was never tendered to prove that humans exhibited "natural" behaviors that do not appear in the animal kingdom.

The point being made was that human beings do a LOT of "unnatural" things on a regular basis, so why is this ONE *allegedly* unnatural act (ie homosexuality) so particularly vexing?

I think that was pretty clear. Honestly, I do.

I am really going to need you to focus on things that I actually SAY rather than substituting my position with easily-demolished strawmen. If you persist with this dishonest practice, I'll have to just refrain from continuing discussion with you.

If there's something you don't understand properly, then just ask for clarification. At one point, I misinterpreted one of your statements and I owned up to it and corrected myself. I don't think that's a big deal. But this blatant lying is really annoying.

Stop it.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your spiel on the issue of animals and psychedelics because
a) as I have said a few times already, it's irrelevant to the larger discussion and
b) what you are saying is based on a misreading (whether accidental or deliberate) of what I actually said. Thus, it is especially irrelevant to me in particular

Sagamite:

Don't you think it is best to drop the point now and accept you erred?

You need to admit that you are talking completely off-point from what I said. That is the right thing to do.

Now. On to the meat of the relevant discussion.

Sagamite:

Yep, there is a reason we are humans.

If you accept that human beings have different (and probably higher) standards from lower animals, then you admit that using the animal kingdom as the ultimate yardstick for acceptable human behavior is a fallacy.

Sagamite:

Ol'Boy, you are confused me o. I think say you are not into morality ni? 

I said that when?

Sagamite:

You got it wrong again.

Women want men to be exclusive to them, men want women to be exclusive to them. Giving exclusivity is where the problem is.

No, you have got it wrong.

You originally said that all humans are hard-wired to want exclusivity and I said this is false. Women are more inclined towards exclusivity on a biological level, but men's desire for exclusivity is a social adaptation. The male's "natural," biological impulse is to mate with as many females as possible.

The biological imperative of both the male and the female is to see the continuation of their genes into future generations, but they each have different ways of working towards these goals.

For the male, it is via multiple mating. This is because the male sex cells are cheap and plentiful and quickly replenished. Also, the man is not weighed down by gestation. He can impregnate a woman in the morning, stand up and walk away to impregnate another one later in the afternoon and then another at night. For the male, it is a numbers game; the more females he impregnates, the more offspring he creates, and the more chance that some of them will survive to reproductive age to continue the cycle.

The sex cells of the female, on the other hand, are a bit dearer--she only gets one a month, and once it gets fertilized, she is out of the mating game for almost a year (in humans). She can't engage in successful fertilization as many times in her lifetime as a male, and so rather than shooting for quantity of offspring, she must concentrate on quality. Her best bet to see her genes thrive is to select a male mate with strong, attractive genes and one who will actually stick around to help her bear the burden of raising the offspring to adulthood.

The male accepts the female's desire for exclusivity on his part because it is more convenient to have a steady female who gives him (theoretically!) regular access to sex rather than constantly going out to "buy" sex, or to have to fight other males to get females. (This is how the institution of marriage evolved from primitive forms of prostitution.) But the trade-off the male demands from the female is that she be exclusive to him . . . because if he is going to stick around and invest the time and resources to raising her offspring, he wants to be sure of their paternity so that he is not working hard to promote the DNA of another male over his own.

But even then (as we see everyday in society), men still find a way to mess around behind their wives' backs. Because exclusivity is not "natural" to men; it's an adaptation, a social compromise.

When I think about it now, exclusivity is not even necessarily "natural" to women on a biological level. As already stated, the female's biological imperative is to raise the best quality spawn. And while this usually involves wanting to have the male stay with her to rear them, it also involves conceiving them of the best genetic material available . . . even if it is not the same male who she chooses to raise them.

Again, you see this a lot in modern society when women get pregnant by the sexy, dangerous male that they *really* love, and then fob the pregnancy off on a more stable (if boring) man.

(An interesting casual discussion of this phenomenon in both humans and animals here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MAUO8vUn5xEJ:moreintelligentlife.com/content/issues-ideas/catherine-nixey/whos-daddy+moreintelligentlife+daddy&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

Forgive me for going on at length, but I'm really not feeling this whole tendency of yours to misinterpret my words. So I feel the need to make sure that my statements are comprehensive . . . and comprehensible.

Sagamite:

The unnaturality of homosexuality is disgusting and an eyesore,

TO YOU.

Carry on.

Sagamite:

that is why we term it as immoral and want to can it. Let me be nice again, and warn in advance that you to tred carefully when you respond to this statement as your answer might lead to me using it to bring down your argument.

There's no answer I have to give beyond the one I gave above. Your sentence is actually incomplete. When you say "The unnaturality of homosexuality is disgusting and an eyesore," the silent clause that you left out was "TO ME."

You're simply taking a personal opinion, inflating it to a universal truth and hoping that if you repeat it enough times that it will become a reality.

I personally do not think homosexuality is disgusting or an eyesore. That simple fact is probably enough to puncture your declaration, but I could probably round up one thousand other people who also disagree with you.

Hell, recently a survey of the United States armed forces (in which, by the way, I proudly served and I can assure you it is one of the most hyper-masculine, testosterone-inundated environments you'll find on the face of the earth) revealed that a majority of its members don't even give a schitt anymore if another soldier is gay. You're free to disagree with them, or question their responses as a result of a decadent society, but the end point is still that you can NOT state uncategorically and universally that homosexuality is disgusting and an eyesore.

Just speak for yourself, man. Stop putting words in other people's mouths.
 

Sagamite:

Oh, so you accept that naturality is a grounds for judging something as immoral? Good.

I did say that some of our ideas of morality are shaped by nature, yes . . . but also that some of them are at odds with nature. Just so we can be accurate.

Sagamite:

Psychological is dependent to an extent. To the extent of the disgusting activity with child, how it is expressed and what the child sees as expectations of what is acceptable which is dependent on culture. It is very disgusting to even think about, talkless of elaborating, that is just "my morality" kicking in, so I will not go further into it.

I'm glad that you have at least acknowledged that it is your own personal temperament that you are talking about rather than claiming that it is universal nature.

Also, you have admitted that it is dependent upon culture, which varies from community to community and thus is not universal "nature" like sweating, defecating, sleeping, etc.

I am pleased at your progress towards rational thought over sentimentality and hysterics. 

Sagamite:

In regards to physical, the same applies to homosexuality. The human anal canal has delicate tissues which are easily ruptured when penetrated. It is one of the fundamental reasons MobinGay struggles with walking. The chances of this rupturing happening during anal intercourse are high, opening up direct blood-to-blood infection channels. This is why the AIDS pandemic in the West decimated the gay MALE population, while having a substantially smaller impact on the straight population. More reason to conclude that gay intercourse is harmful and dangerous.

I have a bunch of responses that completely invalidate your above rationalization, but for the sake of time and space I'll boil them down to bullet points:

i) If you are arguing homosexuality is immoral because of the "dangers" of a n a  l  intercourse, does that then mean lesbians are okay?
ii) Even if a n a l congress is harmful, you are discounting the "consenting adults" part. While society seeks to prevent its members from inflicting harm *upon others*, individuals are, for the most part, quite free to harm themselves and engage in dangerous activities if they so desire. As long as nobody is forcing the a n a l sex on them, then it is nobody's business.
iii) It might surprise you to learn that a large proportion of gay men do not even engage in a n a l sex.
iv) It's pretty disingenuous of you to now be trying to argue that homosexuality is immoral because it is physically harmful when you previously said that it is not any particular sex act that is immoral, but the very desire to be with someone of the same sex
v) ESPECIALLY when you previously implied (and I must make it clear that you implied it, rather than stating it directly . . . so correct me if I am wrong) that a n a l sex is okay, as long as it occurs between persons of different sexes.

Summary: You are all over the place with this argument, son. You need to focus.
 

Sagamite:

I would be very surprised if homosexuality was criminalized because of my belief that it is disgusting. I didn't know *I* was the one that determined it. I know I am important,I just did not know I was that important. F Lord!

Oh, you are NOT that important. That is the reason that we are even having this circuitous discussion. If you just acknowledged that all your supposedly sound philosophical, biological and social theories about the immorality of homosexuality are nothing but a front for personal distaste, this would have been over long ago!

Sagamite:

You did not say what? 

I will work with it by doing the ACTUAL quotes.

I said:
You even quoted me to show you understood the argument because you said:
That is conclusively A1 as I stated: Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural. (⊤ = True) Fa-fa . . . . .FACT!

You now went on to conclude and miscontrue by substitution:
Note: Let us remember WHAT I SAID was "homosexuality was unnatural because it does not occur in the animal kingdom", NOT IMMORAL! That was YOUR substitution!!![/QUOTE]

And it is a completely valid substitution.

I asked: Why is homosexuality immoral?
You answered: It is immoral because it is unnatural. (Statement A)
I asked: Why is it unnatural?
You answered: Because it does not occur in the animal kingdom. (Statement B)
From this, I concluded that: Homosexuality is immoral because it does not occur in the animal kingdom. (Statement C)

Again, there is a unilateral causal relationship at work. If Statement A and Statement B are both accepted to be factual, then it follows that Statement C is also factual.

Dude, this is stuff you learn on the very first day of Logic 101, but you probably don't pay much attention to because it is commonsense anyway. Can you seriously not understand this?

[quote author=Sagamite link=topic=562778.msg7324196#msg7324196 date=1292229329]
That is conclusively A2 as I stated: Anything immoral must be unnatural. (⊥ = False) Fa-fa . . . . .FACT!

Check the dates and time tags and make sure I have not manufactured anything.

LOL Except that I never said anything even close to that, and it's telling that you can't produce a direct quote of me saying or implying it because (as seems to be your wont) you are fabricating strawmen to attribute to me.

What I *did* say is that (based solely upon YOUR premises) anything unnatural must be immoral. Not vice versa.

Seriously, go back and brush up on your Logic, because it seems you are reasoning backwards.

Sagamite:

I will struggle to understand and prove what opposite genders do in their bedrooms. I keep on telling you that the DESIRE for an opposite gender is NATURAL so anything to satisfy that desire is fine by me if they do it in the privacy of their home.

Except of course when you are crying about the physical dangers of a n a l sex. Pick a position and stick with it!

Sagamite:

The problem here is your lack of ability to understand "natural" as I explain at the beginning of this post.

I understand it perfectly: that which occurs in the animal kingdom. Except that you admitted that we have evolved to a higher level than most animals and thus are not bound to limit our ideas of acceptable behavior to that which is done by animals.

Also, I wonder why you are still trying to convince me that homosexuality is not "natural" when right from the beginning I agreed (for the sake of his argument) to accept that it is "unnatural" as a foregone conclusion but what i expected you to prove to me that "unnatural" automatically means "immoral." And all you have done is just repeat over and over that it is immoral (just because you say so) and that it is a disgusting eyesore to Sagamte personally.

Trust me, I understand.

I do wonder, though if you understand the extent to which you have unseamed your own position through your endless vacillations.

Yes. . . I do wonder.

Sagamite:

So basically I am right? You are just arguing out of logic to stay relevant on the point?

I told you that I was not too interested in drawing out the issue of alcohol and dogs but you doggedly held on to it. It's really not that relevant to the point but just to cap it off, let me clear something:

Sagamite:

So you know the analogy for dogs drinking alcohol is like humans getting a stab effect? That if, AS I SAID,  "animals can manufacture some version that gives them their own idiosyncratic high, they will take it"?

So why are you still denying that animals have no interest in psychedelic things if you can't prove it?

Maybe it is time for you to silently drop this point as Pavlov can not help you on this. You flawed logically when you did not realise animals will take psychedelic things if they can process it to their taste and takes similar "long term span" like the ones we have processed for ourselves. Surely you are smart enough to know we humans, like other animals will not take any that has short term span of effect? Like-for-Like comparisons is a standard best practice in professional industries for some reasons you know?

I notice that you conveniently continue to ignore the fact that I pointed out on at least two occasions that natural, unprocessed psychoactive substances occur in nature, and for whatever reason animals choose to avoid these herbs and fungi. I don't blame you, though. . .  that would throw a wrench into your theory above. Not that it doesn't already inbuilt bugs of its own.

It's a mighty heavy leap to say that animals WILL take psychotropics if they can process them to their tastes while not offering a ghost of a shred of evidence to support this.

At least my observation that animals avoid even naturally occurring psychedelics works as some sort of evidence (however fragile) that they don't have an interest n getting high. How do you support the assertion that they DO in fact want to get high but they just don't have the skills to produce drugs?

Anyway, like I said, this is a heavy digression that was not supposed to be this major and really is inessential to my key point. I don't understand why you have elected to protract it rather than just letting it slide.

(But then again, here I am responding to it rather than ignoring it, so who am I to talk?)

Sagamite:

Morality is not used to curb naturality. Virtually all animal species sets societal rules to ensure the efficacy of its society. The things you alluded to are applied as rules to avoid dangers that affect the society humans exist in. We have identified behaviours that can disrupt the peace of the society and affect our survival, which is the PRIMARY module of naturality, and set society rules to protect ourselves.

Most species do have some form of societal decorum but none of them has evolved social codes as complex as mankind's, and none of them has codified these rules specifically to restrain the species essential savage nature.

Sagamite:

I have always philosophised that no one owns any land. You didn't bring it from heaven. But we structured our society that territories and claims to it might aid peace and prevent fights. Even lions try it. If one of us is working hard to till the soil to grow food to survive, it is immoral for another to come and rap it for his own survival.

See . . . Lions, for example, do not possess this kind of complex morality. Lions have social organization, but at the end of the day brute force trumps everything.

If a group of lions sees some lovely lionesses traveling with a competing pride and nursing their cubs, the lions do not reflect that these lions are working hard to raise a family and should be encouraged; no, the lions will descend upon the pride and kill the alpha male and his brothers, and all of the pride's existing cubs so that they can mate with the lionesses.

THAT is nature. That is the nature of animals, and at the heart of it, that is the nature of man.

If you leave a man being to grow up without moral instruction, he will act just like those animals.

Sagamite:

In regards to impregnating different women, I am surprised you state a real natural desire like that that I had for Odunnu and Googles earlier, but you completely omitted other equal natural desires that act parallelly and simultenuously. These other naturalities are the fact that (1) we all have sexual desires and one person taking about too much of women might lead to duels with others that cannot get any as their is a natural split of sexes, (1) also such acts it will NATURALLY lead to jealousy as we are also naturally built to want exclusivity which also lead to duels, so we as humans with thinking have set rules that balances all the forces of nature to ensure minimal squabbles that can lead to acts that threaten our survival.

I clearly stated that as humans we have decided for various social reasons that this "natural" impulse can be problematic. I reckoned that you could figure it out for yourself.

But let me correct you on one point: We are not necessarily "naturally" built to want exclusivity. Well . . . Women are, but men are not. And we formulate a system of morality to corral man's inherent drive to wander because of various social problems it leads to.

Which brings us back to my root question: What are the significant social problems caused by homosexuality that we must control by branding it immoral?

Sagamite:

You got it UTTERLY, COMPLETELY WROOOOOOOOOOOOOONG!!!!

I have absolutely, I repeat absolutely, no problem with whos d i ck MobinGay has in his mouth and is gagging over behind closed doors. I have a problem with his likes wanting to put it in public and promote it as normal and natural. If the MobinGays did it without my knowledge or society's knowledge, I have no issues with them.

Again, how does your knowledge of it hurt society at large? Beyond grossing you out, that is.

Sagamite:

Why is it hinged on consent?

Is it not based on our sense of morality that you were challenging before?

So what if the child has not attained sexual maturity? On what basis should we prevent another human to not have intimacy with them? Morals?

Why should (according to your pervading logic) paedophiles respect what we have judged as moral?

Are you now saying morals judged on naturality (i.e. sexual maturity) and hinged in our laws is acceptable afterall?

I never said that they were wholly unacceptable. I actually stated before that naturality sometimes acts as a guideline for our ideas of morality but that our moral ideas are often at odds with our nature.

As I said above, it is the natural instinct of the man to mate with all available females. In order to avoid various social problems (do I need to spell them out?) we must stake out some women who are off limits: females who have been claimed by other men, for instance. Or those that are not mature enough to to give informed consent to enter such a contract.

Furthermore, sexual intercourse with a child who has not biologically reached sexual maturity is harmful to the child--both psychologically and physically. Again, it comes down to doing harm to others; most of our morals are based on pragmatic concerns like that.

And again, I ask you: What is the significant harm being done to individuals or to the society at large by two men kissing in public?

Sagamite:

Just like you don't have the right to determine consent as part of the pre-determinants of sexual intercourse? 

I warned you that you should answer carefully as that was the pitfall of your arguments. Did I not?

The difference is that *I* did not determine consent as part of the pre-determinants. That is the law. *I* didn't write it.

Does the law similarly support your belief that something should be criminalized because it is "disgusting" to Sagamite, personally?

Sagamite:

It is! We will get to it after you admit that naturality is grounds for immorality as you have already contradicted yourself with the paedo "consent" requirement based on sexual immaturity.

I will admit it when you actually prove that there is a natural link between naturality and morality. . . something that you have so far failed to do.

And no, I did not contradict myself.

Sagamite:

Eh, mate, your logic is not meeting par here.

First of all, I see you are no more denying that you said I stated anything disgusting is unnatural as I quoted you. Good!

I corrected myself there. Not a problem.

Sagamite:

Secondly, let me help you with your logic using your own examples in parallels as I think it will help you comprehend it better.

Label: Statement. (Logic symbol)
A1: Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural. (⊤ = True)
B2: My book is wet because it fell in the water. (⇔ = if and only if the book is made of material that absolves water but since that is what we know of our world today, I am happy to apply true, ⊤, for it)

You now said (according to your logic):

[b]Label: Statement. (Logic symbol)
A2: Anything immoral must be unnatural. (⊥ = False)
B2: Anything wet must have fallen in water. (⊥ = False)[/b]

Is it only water that makes a book wet?

Except that I neither overtly said nor even remotely implied A2 and B2 above.

I know you said excelled in Logic back in the day, but you might want to go back and brush up a little bit.

The use of the word "because" indicates a unilateral causal relationship between two clauses. It would go like this:

A: Water makes things wet.
B: My book fell in the water.
C: Therefore, my book has been made wet.

There's nothing in the above that suggests that water is the ONLY substance that makes things wet; the premise that the book indeed fell into water has already been accepted as a known "fact" and we're not trying to infer what substance the book fell into.

The "logic" you are working above and trying to attribute to me is:

A: All men are mortal.
B: Socrates is a man.
C: Therefore, all men are Socrates.

That is utterly moronic and a universe away from anything I said.

Who is misconstruing who's arguments here?

"My book is wet BECAUSE it fell in the water."

"It is immoral BECAUSE it is unnatural."

A {BECAUSE} B

B is the cause of A. We're not saying that B is the only thing that can cause A, but we are working with the confirmed premise that B makes A happen.

And according to your statement, unnaturality is the cause of immorality. This is something YOU said; I didn't make it up.

Or would you rather just withdraw that statement? I'd have no problem with that at all.

Sagamite:

So, please don't miscontrue my arguments.

The basis of the disgust is the fundamentals of the difference and the nullify of the comparisons.

My basis of disgust is based on naturality, yours is based on . . . . . . (I really don't know, but I can bet it will be irrelevant and inconsequential).

The fact that I am disgust with someone showing a messy bedroom and calling it art is not grounds for saying such art showed be banned or comparable to disgust for paedophilia.

and yet, you are not disgusted by "unnatural" desires like the urge to engage in oral or a n a l sex as long as you are assured that the participants are of opposite genders.

I just can't understand how you don't see the hypocrisy and self-contradiction inherent in that.

Or perhaps you do, and that's why you brushed it off so casually.

But the thing is that you're working two strains here and not really justifying either one:

a) It is immoral BECAUSE it is unnatural.
b) It is immoral BECAUSE it is disgusting.

Frankly, I give more currency to b) though I still maintain that this is really your personal problem and not society's. . .  That is, until you illustrate how exactly it is harmful to society.

ragdollz:


I can see that being crude is another one of your strong points, that is apart from long-winded posts and irrelevant argument . The main "expert" would be the Bible which tells us that such acts or behaviour wrong. Do you need me to quote the verses or can you find them yourself? You seem like a "researcher" type of guy due to your blathering. Anyway, try to address others with a little more decorum, ok? Don't sink to cheap insults to get your point across. Friendly advice .

I never insulted you. I simply said that you were pulling spurious "facts" out of your anus, which is actually a very common colloquialism to describe when someone is fabricating something. If you find that crude, too bad.

On the other hand, YOU insulted me by talking about how I'm not as smart or witty as I think I am (of course, I have made no claims to being either smart or witty).

That being said, your argument is in fact irrelevant. I will not accept the Bible as a valid source. And you don't have to bother quoting chapters and verses for me as I have read the Bible from cover to cover (more than once, too).

At this point, I will have to retire from further exchanges with you on this subject, but thanks for piping in.

ragdollz:


My kind of logic may not be your kind of logic, let's get that clear . Trying to "moralize" homosexuality is out of the question cos it is BAD, which was my point. I think my own "logic" is better than someone who uses DOGS in his analogies when discussing humans. My friend get a grip, you're not as smart or witty as you think you are.

ragdollz. . . Your kind of logic is no logic at all, actually.

You made the claim that the issue of the morality or immorality of homosexuality "has already been researched and tabled by experts."

Would it be too much to ask you to direct me to these "expert" studies and their conclusions?

Or was that, perhaps, just something you pulled out of your anus?

I suspect that it was.

Whitney was never married before Bobby Brown. Whoever said that is talking nonsense.

Secondly, what was the terrible thing that Bobby Brown supposedly did to Whitney Houston?

emofine:

TUFIAKWA – I knew watching Nollywood abi Biafrawood wood be handy someday
Chai Igbo people go collect offering from anybody
Na wa ooooooooooooooooooooo
Sodom and Gomorrah have no place in Nigeria not even for 30 pieces of silver o

emofine, I am sure you are being facetious, but just so that there is no understanding let us make it clear that the first "homosexual church" in Nigeria was the House of Rainbow in Lagos, headed by the openly gay Rev. Jide Macauley.

ragdollz:

Please are we still arguing whether homosexuality is right or wrong!!? This has already been well researched and tabled by experts . I keep saying, something that is bad is bad absolutely, no middle ground, no grey corners . Immoral, unnatural, it is all of these things, but we will not judge on this alone, but on the effect it has on society esp from the view point of "normal" pple. It demoralizes others esp when it is so heavily publicised. Keep it to your closet or inside your cupboard then no one will judge/condemn you. Imagine a young child seeing a man and man holding hands or kissing on the street, it will affect the child forever . Like I said, keep it in the closet!!!!

You have just said absolutely nothing.

There is not a single point of logic to be found in your words above.

Just wanted to make sure you were aware of that.

Sagamite:

Lets live in the imaginary word that the dog can make the connection for a second. How did you come to the conclusion that the dog will avoid the drink?

Because it suits your argument?

A dog that is enjoying it will decide it is not good for its health and avoid it? So basically you are saying you KNOW dogs will have better judgement and discipline by default THAN HUMANS because we have not been that capable? How did you know that? And you are talking about arguments not having logic?

That's quite simple. While abuse of alcohol can result in health problems for humans *over the long term*, the ill effect it has on a dog is much more immediate.

Dogs don't have the capacity to process ethanol that human beings have, and so even a relatively small amount of alcohol can be disconcerting and even dangerous for a dog to ingest.

If a dog gets sick immediately after ingesting alcohol enough times, it will learn to associate the sickness with the smell or sight of alcohol, and probably would not willingly go out of its way to ingest it (Thanks, Pavlov!).

Humans might also get immediately sick after consuming an EXCESSIVE volume of alcohol, but if the human is attached enough to the pleasurable effects of alcohol (which a dog does not enjoy), they will probably adjust the amount they drink to avoid getting sick.

But, if one of the standard effects of alcohol on human beings were the sensation of being stabbed with a thousand swords after taking even a small amount, it's unlikely that humans would drink much, if at all.

Sagamite:

If it is questionable, disprove it. That is what I asked from the beginning. I even gave guidelines. What didn't you understand?

And I told you that I will cross that bridge when I get to it.

For the time being, I am interested in the very first statement of your argument.

Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural.

It is immoral because it is unnatural.

Because implies causality. The immorality derives from the unnaturality. And I am trying to understand  this equation because (as I have stated and demonstrated) "naturality" (not a real word, but whatever) and morality are often the opposite of each other.

I don't feel the need to dissect your argument about whether or not homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom because the question I had when I challenged you is contained right in this statement:

Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural.

You'll recall that in my initial post, I queried you on the source of your strong moral objection to homosexuality since you don't seem to be religious.

You directed me to a post that said it is immoral because it is unnatural.

I really don't need to go further than that to argue with you about whether or not it is "natural" (ie occurring in the animal kingdom). Even if I ASSUME that you are correct in your assessment that it is "unnatural," MY issue with you is how that equates to "immorality."

THAT is why I have not bothered to furnish you with examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It's not relevant to my argument (at this time).

My argument with you is whether something (supposedly) being "unnatural" automatically makes it "immoral."

You seem to be a smart guy, so I find it hard to believe that you really don't understand this,  So forgive me for coming to the conclusion that you are deliberately avoiding the clear point being directed to you.

Sagamite:

Yes, morality is ENTIRELY a human construct.

That said, there is no other, I repeat, no other basis as strong as strong as naturality bar harmfulness to adjudicate morality.

But this statement is wrong, and I've already illustrated its wrongness in my reply to Chrisbenogor when I pointed out that the "natural" instinct of the hungry man is to feed from the fruits of any tree he sees, but "morally" society tells us  that this is theft, and is wrong.

A more vivid example: It is the "natural," biological impulse of a human male to mate with and possibly impregnate as many females as he can. However, for various social reasons, we as humans have decided that this "natural" impulse is problematic, and thus it is better for the man to mate with just ONE woman, or with a limited number of women that are recognized by the community as his wives. And then society teaches us that to do otherwise--to impregnate 100 women, for example--is immoral.

The point: Morality is not adjudicated by naturality. In fact, morality is often conceived to CURB naturality.

So that leaves us (according to you assertion) with harmfulness--which, frankly, I expected to the crux of your argument rather than morality.

I just don't see how two dudes sucking each other's d i c k s behind closed doors is harming society.

Which is why I'm so interested in understanding why a rational,  non-religiously guided person would be so aggressively opposed it. And your responses are pointing towards the fact that it just disgusts you on a personal level. But that is, ultimately your own personal problem, not society's.

Sagamite:

Otherwise on what basis would you justify banning paedophilia. Thread carefully hear as whatever you say might kill your arguments.

Most of our sex laws hinge on the concept of consent--on the idea that when two or more parties enter into a sexual union, that they are all willing participants and presumably understand and are willing to bear whatever consequences may result from such a union.

Pedophilia is a crime because in society's eyes, a child does not have the intellectual capacity to understand and make a decision to enter such a union.

It also depends on what we are calling pedophilia, by the way: Is it sex with children who have not attained sexual maturity (which is wrong for obvious reasons) or adolescents who might be sexually mature on a physical level but have not reached the age of majority an consent according to the standards of a particular society.

But really . . . It's all about consent. Which is part of the reason that necrophilia is considered immoral, by the way (obviously, that's not the only reason. But the fact that a dead body cannot consent to sex is a factor).

So if you have two men or two women who consent to do the nasty with each other, where exactly is the problem?

Sagamite:

Prove it is naturally and I should not be disgusted.

I don't have to prove anything. You have the right to be disgusted by whatever you want. What you don't have is the right to project your personal disgust as the law of the universe.

Sagamite:

Defend what?

I gave you a theorem, you keep twisting it because you struggled to comprehend it and then you are asking me to "defend" against your twist? Are you serious?

Disprove the theorem.

As I pointed out above, I don't HAVE to. Because the theorem I am primarily interested in is Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural.

Please note that it's not that I CAN'T disprove your theorem about homosexuality in the animal kingdom, but it's just not necessary.

Sagamite:

So somehow, becauseI said that, through your comprehension you decided that what I said was anything immoral is unnatural? Because that is WHAT you misconstrued my assertion to mean based on your comprehension.

I misconstrued nothing.

Did you or did you not say Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural?

That clearly denotes a causal link between them, does it not?

My book is wet because it fell in the water.

In this sentence, the water is the source of the wetness. If something falls in the water, it must get wet. Because water causes wetness.

If something is immoral because it is unnatural, then it follows that the unnaturality causes the immorality.

What did I misconstrue? This is what you said yourself.

If you want to revise your statement or argue that you originally misspoke, then that is fine. Withdraw that statement, replace it with a more functional one and we can work from there.

But don't get mad for me actually following the argument you offered.

I see that while I was typing, you modified your message with this:

Sagamite:

You gum argument is COMPLETELY LAME and RIDICULOUS but the depth is so poor I can easily address it.

Here is your answer: If you can get enough people to agree it is disgusting, then you have the grounds to ban it.

But how the HELL you linked chewing gum as comparison to an unnatural act beats me. You can as well link putting maggi in a pot of stew as your argument of what disgust you and should be banned. I don't debate at that level.

First of all, my analogy to chewing gum is completely valid.

You stated that homosexuality is disgusting to YOU, which is a personal bias.
I stated that chewing gum is disgusting to ME, which is also a personal bias.

The fact that these things might respectively disgust us as individuals is no grounds to suggest that they are universally immoral. Many people are not disgusted by gum like I am; many people also are not disgusted by homosexuality.

That argument is 100% sound, my friend.

However, I see that you have slightly switched lanes by appealing to social consensus. Very well, if you can get a majority of the members of society to agree that homosexuality is disgusting, then yes. . . you can ban it.

But that still does not prove its inherent immorality, which remains the root of my question.

Chrisbenogor:

Sorry to butt in, I dey enjoy this eh please is homosexual intercourse and homosexuality not different? can you guys factor it into the argument?

Chrisbenogor, I personally I am not drawing much distinction between homosexual intercourse as a specific act and homosexuality as a sexual impulse or lifestyle.

However, Sagamite seems to be implying that he is indicting the very "desire" to have intercourse with someone of the same gender as a dysfunction, and thus "immoral". . .  I am prepared to meet him on that ground.

Unfortunately, we seem to have gotten bogged down by the morality issue, which he has failed to explain sufficiently.

I will restate: "naturality" has NOTHING to do with morality.

When a man is hungry, if he sees a tree in his neighbor's compound growing with fruit, his most basic, "natural" impulse is to want to climb the tree, pluck the fruit and eat.

That is "natural." And that is what an animal would do.

However, the man's human MORAL sense tells him that it is wrong ("immoral" to reap where he did not sow, and that eating the fruit is stealing.

"morals" and "naturality" are often at odds, and not synonymous with each other, as Sagamite wants us to believe.