and guess why?
are having a debate
During prenatal care, your doctor had a way of determining with some level of accuracy the sexual orientation of your soon to be born child? Would this be a good idea in a world that is already too homophobic, where in countries like Uganda and Nigeria, it is a criminal offence to be gay? Would this help matters or will this worsen a situation that is already delicate? What or rather how will a church that sees being gay as a sickness respond to such a breakthrough if we call it that? Wouldn’t this help their cause where parents would begin to choose for heterosexuality?
The science of gaydar paper is very interesting, and this for many reasons- when you begin to think about the idea, one may agree it would be important for the members of the gay community if this could be put at a rest, that is, the oft repeated statement that sexual orientation is a choice. The fear that I have, and that is similarly raised in the other article I have linked above, is wouldn’t this in some manner promote eugenics as practiced by the Nazi not so long ago?
What do the ladies think about this comment
Female sexual response is more democratic, opaque, and unpredictable: Arousal itself is harder to track, and there is evidence that it defies easy categorization. “I don’t yet understand female partner choices very well, and neither does anyone else,” [..]. “What I do think it’s time to do is admit that female sexuality looks in some ways very different from male sexuality, and that there is no clear analog in women of men’s directed sexual-arousal pattern, which I think is their sexual orientation. I am not sure that women don’t have a sexual orientation, but it is certainly unclear that they do.”
Do you agree with this proposition or has the researcher misrepresented a significant population of the human species?
And lastly, what are your thoughts in relation to this closing paragraph in the paper
It’s not playing with the number of toes you have; it’s really manipulating your very essence. So many people see gay people only in terms of sexual behavior, as opposed to what sexual orientation is really about, which is how you fit into the world. I don’t want to get mushy, but it’s about your soul?
My friend JZ brought this study, if we can call it that, by a Nigerian post graduate student at the University of Lagos purporting to have definitively proved homosexuality is wrong. Those of you on the micro-blogging site, twitter, do know there is usually a love-hate relationship between Kenya and Nigeria which yours truly isn’t interested in today, but I would suggest they close this university for a while.
Please tell me that after reading this,
Mr Amalaha claimed that as the poles of magnets repel those of the same type, this “means that man cannot attract another man because they are the same, and a woman should not attract a woman because they are the same. That is how I used physics to prove gay marriage wrong”
you will not demand that the faculty or department head be asked a few questions and while that is being done, that the faculty be closed to re-asses what their students have been learning. For please tell, how is this science? and by a post graduate student to boot? We have our own problems here, for example 500ml of milk[ a commodity we produce locally] retails at almost the price of a litre of petrol[ a commodity we import] but I think Nigerians have bigger problems. They queue for fuel, which they are the third largest exporter in Africa if my regional knowledge is correct and now they have University of Lagos!
If you thought religion was far away from this research, think again
In recent time I found that gay marriage, which is homosexuality and lesbianism, is eating deep into the fabric of our human nature all over the world and this was why nations of Sodom and Gomora were destroyed by God because they were into gay practice
Read that again and tell me, you don’t want to shoot yourself in the head! His god has a way of attending to his mistakes. Wipe them all out, so that when the inspectors come there is no evidence and you can’t tell who was doing what. Me wonders if the young babies, children and pregnant women were all gays so they had to be killed off? I mean just asking 😛
Now for the real punchline, we are told
Recently my lecturer at the Department of Chemical Engineering, Profesor D S Aribuike, pointedly told me that I will win Nobel prize one day, because he found that my works are real and nobody has done it in any part of the world
Me needs a Nobel right away! I mean seriously, seriously, this is cutting edge research that the departmental head is so pleased about. Shoot me, but if this was my university, I would for the time being say I went to a different school.
Chemical Engineers out there, please weigh in and tell us what field of research this is. Yours truly is not a science guy 😛
In the recent weeks, here in the neck of woods, transgender issues have received national spotlight as a result of one person’s struggle for sex change. In today’s paper, a columnist writes
So it makes sense to oppose the LGBTI agenda, not because we hate the individuals espousing it before us, but because we love the families we are protecting behind us.
which is an appeal to intolerance towards others based on claims written in an old goat herders narrative. He writes elsewhere
The moment we ignore the biblical admonition, “male and female he created them”, together with its genetic, anatomical, psychological, spiritual and societal manifestations
It is evident here, that his objections are based on his religion. He appeals to a slippery slope that is simply non existent. He writes
then nothing is left to halt the slippery slope that compels us all to ignore sexual differences in any personal or social reality.
There is no slippery slope. Allowing the LGBT to live their lives and at the same time enjoy the same protections from government as heterosexual couples get doesn’t threaten your job, your work or your family.
The author of the article, though appearing to be well read, appears to me to have missed the points in some of the works he claims to have read. Take the case of Plato’s republic. In this philosophical discourse, Plato presents the ideal state. It is utopian only to the extent that such an ideal does not exist but it doesn’t mean that members of our race can’t aspire to such a state. Unless our author has a problem with aspiring to ideals, I don’t see how Plato fits in with his bigotry.
In 1984, Orwell tells the story of a state where big brother monitors your every movement and where your neighbor can spy on you. Dissent isn’t allowed. There isn’t room for individual expression or even free thought. Whereas, the world has not gone to this level, it appears that it is not far off what with reports of governments monitoring private communication?
This is a response to Caroline’s post , equal rights for adulterers, where one would think she is arguing against adultery but it is her attempt attacking those arguing for the equal rights of LGBTs to marry.
Before we get to Caroline, let us define our terms, shall we?
a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same-sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons ;
c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially: the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3 : an intimate or close union
Let us hear what Caroline is telling her audience
The argument for same-sex marriage says that denying that right to gays is discriminatory and unfair. No…it’s not. No more than denying the right to have multiple spouses, have sex with a ten-year old, or marry your mother. Equal worth does not mandate equal opportunities.
How she sees that this isn’t discriminatory I don’t get. She is referring to a slippery slope that doesn’t even exist. I have got news for Caroline, one no one in their right mind is going to marry their mothers, no body wants to have sex with 10 year olds and you really must be naive to think that to grant a gay couple the right to marry will lead to any of the things you mention. With the rate of divorce across the board, many people marry several spouses in one lifetime that at the end it really makes no much difference.
No one is trying to stop gays from setting up house together. But redefining marriage should absolutely be off the table.
Did you look at the definitions I gave [they were from MW dictionary] so who is trying to redefine marriage? I bet it is Caroline who want marriage to be defined in Christian terms as if marriage is only a christian affair!
I believe the primary reason is that only then will they feel that their lifestyle has legitimacy and acceptance.
You got it all wrong. This is a bigoted stand and you know it. How is their marriage going to affect yours?
But legitimizing homosexuality by redefining marriage will inevitably result in my right to religious freedom being infringed on, as I will be forced to condone (or at least not oppose) and help support a lifestyle that I believe is a sin. Just as normalizing and destigmatizing polygamy would. I am NOT saying I’m less of a sinner than your average, law-abiding homosexual. I AM saying that redefining marriage and sin is like introducing an indestructible killer virus into society.
Now this got to me seriously! Her religious freedom my foot! Is she being asked to be gay? Well Caroline you will have to show us that your god exists and that your religious claims have a truth value before you can tell us of your religious freedom. A sin is an offense against god and it is this god Caroline and her ilk her failed to define to existence. How can she then claim this god will be offended? Caroline and your ilk, first ensure there are no divorces in your traditional marriage then and only then can you start talking about other people’s lives. And while you are at it, please tell me when you chose to be heterosexual, this information will help many generations in the future.
Am guessing Caroline is a citizen of the US of A and this is what the constitution says about religion
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I will say here that am not versed in law, but please tell me where in the above it says gays shall not be allowed to get married because it is this clause that deals with religious freedom? I am aware there is a petition before the SCOTUS on marriage. Here, here and here are some articles on what has been going on in the court and for a person like Caroline to argue as she does is to pretend ignorance of the facts.
Are you ready for same-sex marriage to be forced on you? Are you okay with sharing your spouse?
How many people have been forced to drink alcohol since it was made legal? How many people are forced to smoke because smoking is legal? Last time I checked no one was forcing anything on anyone and unless Caroline can support this claim it would be fair to consider her a bigot.
Polygamy is almost certainly next in line to be demanded as a human right. What defense would we have for prohibiting it once the traditional family unit is debased?
Don’t worry, just ask your husband not to love another woman and if he does, divorce him.