Nigeria imposes State enforced religion

Look up homosexuality in tribal societies.....

 

Um. The article is quite clear and the issue is quite obvious.

If two people of the same sex attempt to get married, they are imprisoned for years[/]i.

The basic human rights are not subject to the biases and bigotries of a society. You are using moral relativism.



Lets assume for a moment that there is a tribe who's holy book states ".... for every third child shall walk the world blind. Their eye shall be removed by thy blade of the father...".

So parents remove the eyes of every third child so that they may walk the world blind as the holy book described.

It is their culture. It is their religion. It is their way of life.

Is it right or wrong?

 

well. LOL. I don't care what your opinion on moral relativism or absolute relativism is. I SAID value judgement and THAT is what i meant.

 

Let's use one that actually occurs. Lets make a law that makes it illegal for siblings to marry.

Is it not a violation of the same "human right" that you claim is violated above?

Yet when siblings marry, the chances of children having birth defects or congenital diseases is greatly increased. In a small society, such children are a severe drag and could damage the whole society. Thus the law is right for such a society, even though it violates your sense of morality.

Now reconsider anti-homosexual laws. In primitive societies where the infant death rate and miscarriage rates are very high, they need as many children to be born as possible to keep the society alive. Having two men marry pulls two potential parents out of the equation, cutting the number of possible children and damaging their birth rate. If this happens too often, the society could really be hurt.

 

So what values should a government enforce? Yours? Why are YOUR values better than religious ones that reflect the dominant VALUES of teh society that enacted the law?

Again whether YOU like it or not, the law in Nigeria conforms to Muslim, Islamic, and traditional African tribal views regarding homosexuality.

You can disagree, but the result is exactly what you ask for, a government that reflects the values of its constituents.

If you disagree, perhaps you can explain why it is bad without running in hyperbolic and accusatory roughshod over everyone else's value and offer a calm evidenced based assessment on why it is wrong, the likely cosequences for teh decision, and then finally a remedy and path to ... a solution.

Like appealing to the Nigerian version of the Supreme Court to strike down the law.

Why should YOUR values be respected, but no one elses? Makes no sense does it?

 

Lets not make assumption based on your own bigoted views of religion and Africa.

Teh simple fact of the matter is that, like it or not, most parts of Africa have a strong tribal basis, and, as such, being largely impoverished, property, familial lineage (and they do care about their families regardless of which religion they belong to) and guess what homosexual marriage does to that system? It literally kills it.

To be homosexual in that culture it to fundamentally reject your family and its obligations. It is anethma to them.

So when you scream about the need to respect something, you should understand that you are running roughshod and making hash of someone else's culture and values - and not addressing a single concern they have in order to villlify and demonize anyone who disagrees with you.

Anyone reading your diatribe involved in the actuality of the discussion in NIgeria will simply conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about, are incredibly disrespectful of their culture - indeed its enemy - and will pass along your emotionalism as proof of the devestating effects FOR THEIR CULTURE of tolerating homosexuality.

Perhaps you should handle your own bigotry toward religion before you demand anyone else handle what you view to be bigotry? Just a thought.

 

Good question, is it right? I mean by my moral standerds it would be wrong. But when do you apply your standerds upon other cultures? What makes one kind of ethical thought more correct then another? Is good and evil mutable? (I think mutable is the right word)

 

That are the same in my eyes, unless you can draw a meaningful distinction between the two.

 

lol
So the answer is imprisoning homosexuals for years?

Absolute insanity.

 

Please just answer my question regarding blinding every third child. Or move on and take your blackened hatred else where.

You are such an inspiration
For the ways I will never ever ever
Choose to be
- Judith

 

So you think it is better to let family lines and their entire culture die off than to enforce the rules they need to preserve their culture?

 

of course there is. And it is significant.

 

Which culture came up with such a rule and why did it originate?

 

So.... describe it or move on.

Rather simple.

 

Meh, this is pure insanity.

So a tiny percentage of the population is going to result in the death of an entire culture? Laughable.

And to prevent such, is to imprison people for years, violating basic human rights, for a victimless crime?
Morally repugnant.

 

It is hypothetical. As I have already said.

Answer the question.

 

It is wrong acording to my standerds. What would you do or should be done about it Wolverine?

 

Your hypothetical doesn't fit with the real world. Most, if not all, moral restrictions, such as those on homosexual relationships, incest and pedophelia, those on food and cleanliness rules, even those on treatment of certain people came around for specific reasons and for specific purposes.

Your hypothetical cuts all of the purpose out of the equation in a hyperbolic attempt to compare a pointless rule with one that has value and purpose.

Since your hypothetical was pure fantasy, I'll assign purpose to it. In your hypothetical world, ESP exists. It is accurate and critical to daily life, but only blind people can accurately see these visions. These visions allow the correct crops to be planted, let the group avoid war and cataclysms and maintain the health and stability of the culture. Blinding the third born ensures that the group will always have such visions as well as giving a role of honor to a person of a birth role that is usually trivial in most societies.

In this circumstance, blinding the third born would be a moral act. It improves both the life of the individual and the society as a whole.

 

Agh, o your hatred of anything that you disagree with is fine. However, despite the fact that homosexuality deeply effects the familial system in Nigerian culture - fundamentally undermining it - and the FACT that no one is killing every third child anywhere - well, we'll just continue to spout hatred while playing the victim and paint all disagreement as if it is tantamount to murder!

I am glad you will never choose to be educated, compassionate, self reliant, responsible, honest with others and yourself, have and enforce standards, be an actual committed multi-culturalist, have tolerance, empathy, insight, logical reasoning, be solution oriented, and be able to discuss problems with compromise and solution in mind rather than emotionlism and demonization.

I am sure your life will be much better without those things, indeed far better if you don't just reject them but see these things as others and hate them all the more for the lack of them in yourself.

I thank God every day for what atheists show me on this forum. It reaffirms the right choice in leaving it behind.

 

Now reconsider laws against rape. In primitive societies where the infant death rate and miscarriage rates are very high, they need as many children to be born as possible to keep the society alive. Prohibiting rape pulls potential fertilizations out of the equation, cutting the number of possible children and damaging their birth rate. If rape doesn't occur, the society could really be hurt.

Only whether or not this society hurt should be of concern, not if individuals hurt in the process. True or false?

 

Or maybe they're just trying to make a superhero like Daredevil.

I was fairly certain that the first person to respond to his scenario would do so in this manner - basically just a dodge. So how about one that does exist - female genital mutilation.

 

You are such an inspiration
For the ways I will never ever ever
Choose to be
Oh so many ways
For me to show you
How your dogma has abandoned you
- Judith

 

Female genetial mutilation is wrong.

It does NOT happen in the majority of Africa, and is often the result of miseducation. The people who practice it often are unaware of the damage they are doing, or sincerely believe that they are helping their daughters.

Education on that one goes a long way toward reducing that problem, with the stap hangers often being oppressive, abusive and the practice simply an extension of what is seen as their power.

Now, as you speak about dodges, questions like these are just that. No atheist is actually dealing with the reality of the homoesexual issue, particularly in Nigeria, and are instead introducing random, emotional tangents to avoid any substantive discussion on a subject often introduced by atheists. Indeed, homosexual rights seems to be a favorite among atheists.

So lets examine it, again.

#1 - In Nigeria, propertym birth right, etc. all pass through the male lineage, and family/tribe is the center of their lives in many cases. Homosexuality threatens that entire system. It threatens to block the continuation of of the lineage, undermine the tribe, and sew seeds of discontent through out the tribe, and possibility, open up an davenue of attack for competeing tribes.

And for what? Sex? I mean you can have a warm friendship, full of deep and meaning feelings without having a sexual relationship. Sex, family, are sen as duty rather than over power and potentially disabling weakness taht must be sated.

#2 - Is sex supposed to control you? If someone chooses honor over sex, is this wrong? If they choose to master their decisions rather than be mastered by their lust, this is bad? So, if you are married and heterosexual and woman walk by and you just KNOW she is the one, you HAVE to commit adultry with her? The same applies to homosexuality and the urges it develops in people.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no 'gay gene'. Indeed, people like Ann Heche, who are publical gay and then 'switch' and are now married with children point strongly in the opposite direction.

So why is the best course, knowing what Nigeria is worried about, to scream bloody murder, human rights, and female genital mutiliation?

SImply put, it isn't. Such antics really indicate that people have just accepted something without thought or regard to the consequences of decisions and policies. If they had, they would be able to address the topic and its concerns rather than just continuously throwing out the old red herring.

 

Um, no. We are going to play by my rules with my example.

ESP does not exist, so we will simply dismiss that outright instead of resorting to fairy tales to justify an inhuman act of father cutting out their children's own eyes.

Please answer the question, directly, without red herring.

Or simply move on and we can simply assume that moral relativism is a nonsensical position.

 

Our unable hero strikes again.

He is now active in three threads, having tossed out homosexuality in all of tehm, and yet is unable to do anything other than demonize people.

I realize I am devilishly handsome, and clearly based on your infatuation with me, you are hoping I might be interested. Unfortuantely for you, I am not gay.

So please, stay focused on the subject at hand, and stop attempting to commit Bible abuse with a religion you know nothing about.

As simply as I can say this, again, there is nothing in love or compassion that requires anyone to tolerate abuse, insults, and manipulative internet bullies.

THis is a debate forum, not a smear anyone who disgrees with me because I cannot make a case and am too close minded to challenge my position and up my game forum.