Xaaji Xunjuf;965124 wrote: But their Kids are full blood Somalilandish people We are a paternal society But it is absurd, isn't it Xaaji?

Alpha Blondy;965123 wrote: aar bal tan eega? what the hell are you talking about? have you read MOCAAT's new legislation on citizenship. i thought so. this will be implemented once its been ratified by parliament. What is MOCAAT adigoo raali ah?:confused:

Tillamook;965048 wrote: The issue at hand here is, should they be allowed to enjoy the same rights as a married heterosexual couple? Homosexuals pay the same rate of tax, fight the same wars, vote for the same leaders, and contribute equally to the progress and wellbeing of the society, so why should the state refuse them the marital rights enjoyed by their straight counterparts?

Somaliland has the most absurd citizenship criteria in the world. This girl can not get a SL passport or vote but her mother can. A man born and bread in Wales and whose father and grandfather were also born and brought up in Wales is considered a Somalilander but his Hargaisa born wife from the Gedo clan is considered an alien:D

There is a nasty thread about this:D

puntnomads;965082 wrote: If the government and Al-Shabab being on the same side is true, I will be vindicated in believing that Somali politics is a joke and a sport. Only the general public are ****** enough to believe in it. Somali politics is not a joke but a tragedy and a curse on the Somalis. The people of Kismaayo have already seen enough disasters and hardship and do not need anymore bloodshed now.

Tillamook;964953 wrote: Really? Was that what you were doing? Trying to discuss an issue? LOL:D O.k, I will bite...let's have a discussion then. Why do you support gay marriage? I believe homosexuals have the right to be in a loving relationship. Why do you have any problem with that?

Tillamook;964949 wrote: ^ No need to get pedantic. I don't discuss non-issues

Tillamook;964945 wrote: ^ well in any case, let's not split hairs. It is all rather disgusting and fyi, I said, more women for "real" men. I don't think I'd call any man who lost a woman to a lesbo or a fruitcake a real man by any definition. Whether you call yourself a real man or an alien do not make you any different to the gay man. The only distinction between you and a gay man is whom you fancy.

Tillamook;964938 wrote: ^ It seems you know a tad bit much about the working conditions at Camp Qoomul Luud. No offense, but why is that? FYI qoomul Luut existed thousands of years ago. The people of to day are qoomul Mohammad [pbuh] and have nothing to do with Luut and his people.

Tillamook;964938 wrote: ^ It seems you know a tad bit much about the working conditions at Camp Qoomul Luud. No offense, but why is that? Only those in deep coma do not know a thing or two about homosexuality

Tillamook;964935 wrote: I don't understand what all this brouhaha is all about... Gay marriage will leave more women for us real men, eh?: D That is not the case. You will still have to compete with the lesbians and the bi-sexual guys for every chick:p

N.O.R.F;964927 wrote: Lol. He doesn't live in Saudi. Can you address his points now? Well there are no points to address here. The guy just regurgitated the discredited non-sense peddled by the Christian evangelicals and the fanatical Muslim pseudo-scientists. The article in the link talks about the real science if you want to know it. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html#.Uc2ovjFwbIU

Abu-Salman;964897 wrote: We need to define very precisely the term "gay" before stating "people are born gay" and other unscientific nonsense. If gay ect was not a social construct (just as "ADHD" is the new term for kids being naturally kids and active), whole societies, not least old greek ones such as Sparta, would not be "gay". We would not be having married spouses leaving their partners and becoming "gay" too (or vice-versa). Clearly men and women interacting between themselves is as old as humanity while these terms and utterly nonsensical statements are more recent (the whole psychiatry field is a scam, under big pharma influence, for instance). So what exactely, scientifically being gay means (outside self-serving pseudo- studies)? A more fundamental issue is, if any primitive instinct should be gratified and excused, why would be cannibalism under consent (yes, there are real cases), incest or any other one be prohibited then under "public morality"? Is even homosexual practice medically safe (clearly, it is extremely risky) or sound in providing children with stable family relationships, arguably their single most important right in any ideological system? If gayness is not a clear cut, scientific term, (eg such as being born with sickle cell or others genetic conditions), and its practice is so medically unsafe, yet not propitious to optimal family structure, why should it be not discouraged instead of being lobbied for? Oh you seem to know more about science than those who do nothing else for living but science. Very clever man indeed:o

tutu;964900 wrote: And Obama wants to import this sickness to the shores of Africa. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2350074/Obama-makes-emotional-visit-slave-shipping-port-just-hours-clashing-Senegalese-president-countrys-anti-gay-laws.html Is the punishment different in northern Somalia? There is no law against homosexuality in Somaliland. It is legal in that sense and the only thing that needs to be done is to legislate for gay marriage:p

Britain plans world's first go-ahead for '3-parent' IVF babies By Kate Kelland, Health and Science Correspondent LONDON | Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:34am BST (Reuters) - Britain is planning to become the first country in the world to offer controversial "three-parent" fertility treatments to families who want to avoid passing on incurable diseases to their children. The methods, currently only at the research stage in laboratories in Britain and the United States, would for the first time involve implanting genetically modified embryos into women. Critics said the technique was ethically suspect and would eventually lead to a eugenic 'designer baby' market. It involves intervening in the fertilisation process to remove faulty mitochondrial DNA, which can cause inherited conditions such as fatal heart problems, liver failure, brain disorders, blindness and muscular dystrophy. The methods are designed to help families with mitochondrial diseases - incurable conditions passed down the maternal line that affect around one in 6,500 children worldwide. Mitochondria act as tiny energy-generating batteries inside cells. The potential treatment is known as three-parent in vitro fertilisation (IVF) because the offspring would have genes from a mother, a father and from a female donor. After a national public consultation showed Britons broadly favour the idea, the government's chief physician said on Friday it should be allowed to go ahead under strict regulation. "Scientists have developed ground-breaking new procedures which could stop these diseases being passed on, bringing hope to many families seeking to prevent their children inheriting them," Sally Davies, chief medical officer, told reporters. "It's only right that we look to introduce this life-saving treatment as soon as we can." But David King, director of the Human Genetics Alert campaign group said "the techniques are unnecessary and their use is ethically unsound" and criticised the government for failing to conduct a more comprehensive public consultation. "They cross the ethical line that has been agreed by government around the world that we should not genetically alter human beings," he said in an emailed statement. DNA SWAP Davies said the government's health department is drafting regulations to cover the new treatments and plans to publish them later this year. The move would make Britain the first country in the world to give patients an option of mitochondrial DNA transfer to avoid passing the diseases on to their children. Scientists are researching several three-parent IVF techniques. One being developed at Britain's Newcastle University, known as pronuclear transfer, swaps DNA between two fertilised human eggs. Another, called maternal spindle transfer, swaps material between the mother's egg and a donor egg before fertilisation. A British medical ethics panel which reviewed the potential treatments for mitochondrial diseases decided last year they were ethical and should go ahead as long as research shows they are likely to be safe and effective. Because Britain is in the vanguard of this research, ethical concerns, political decisions and scientific advances here are closely watched around the world - particularly in the United States where scientists are also working on DNA swap techniques. Pro-life campaigners have already criticised the scientific research, saying that creating embryonic children in a lab abuses them by subjecting them to unnatural processes. Critics like King also worry that modifying embryos to avoid disease is the first step towards the creation of "designer babies", whose genetic makeup could be modified as embryos to ensure certain traits such as height or hair colour. Asked whether she was "comfortable" with taking such a major step along the way to allowing human genetic modification, Davies said she had debated and considered the ethical implications with many experts over many years and had come to the conclusion the techniques should be allowed. Any final decision on putting the regulations in place to allow the new treatments to be offered will be subject to a vote in parliament, but Davies said she hoped the first patients may be able to get the new treatments within two years. (Reporting by Kate Kelland; Editing by Alistair Lyon, John Stonestreet) UK

Apophis;964887 wrote: Tyranny of liberalism, it'll pass. Surely the "tyranny of liberalism" will pass when ignorance takes root in society.

Wadani;964855 wrote: Being gay isn't ok to begin with. And that is only your opinion which is not shared by billions of others.

Wadani;964772 wrote: Aryee, ma cilaawi baad tahay ninyahow. Is caddee baan ku idhi. Waxan oo miidhan baa Soomaali iyo waliba durriyad nala sheeganaya . Smdh. Hate it or like it, 8 to 10% of your fellow Somalis and Duriyad are gay and lesbian just like any other ethnicity.

Apophis;964683 wrote: It's a classic white man problem. Our (African) society will not be modeled on European method; that isn't to say your private doings should lead you to harm. Gay marriage may not be on the African continents political discussions now but gay rights are increasingly on the agenda.

NGONGE;964717 wrote: Not sure why Xiin is getting all worked up there! If this happend in Saudi Arabia or Somalia, I would understand. But in America, GAAL gaal guursaday maaha in oo matag kaa keeno, saaxib. Waaba gaal, he follows different rules. Not all gays are gaalo:eek: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331214/Rehana-Kausar-Sobia-Kamar-Pakistani-lesbians-Muslim-gay-couple-wed-UK-claim-political-asylum.html

Apophis;964681 wrote: Tallabo lalabo bu mesha kaynay. But on topic: this whole thing is overfeed White people's problem. Here in Africa we have more primary problems and re-defining marriage isn't one of those problems. It is not just white people's problem it is a universal issue

Gay parents have 'healthier and less argumentative children' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2336889/Gay-parents-healthier-children-better-self-esteem.html

Haatu;964618 wrote: You know this reminds me of something I heard the other day. Apparently there's a gay Somali MP. How could this be? We should have more of them;)

warsamaale;964615 wrote: so the state has decided to summarily change it. what can you do about it ?:cool: