A Dark Day for the Survival of Humanity

[Aaliyyah]

Reeyo;964815 wrote:

It is truly a deterioration of the human. If we have redefined 'marriage', a union between man and woman for procreating to- same-sex and then we have lost greatly. Xin is not being dramatic but stating a fact.

 

Those of you that believe this is a 'white' 'gaalo' problem. Look at you location and then look at the value system your children are growing up in.

Waxaad ii xasuusay xaflad meher aan maalin dhoweed aadey. OO shiekhadu muxadareenasay tidhi gabadh yar baa hoyadeed ku tidhi hooyo dadka nocaas waa human being ee sida ha uga hadlin oo ay difacasay. Markasay shiekhadi tidhi gabadha yar ee saa u hadlasa bari maxay ku tahay in ay ku biirto dadka nocaas ah..

 

We really do have to think about the values of the people our youngesters are growing up with, and the impact it can have on shaping their values.

[nuune]

Waa naagtii sheikha weydiisey oo ku tidhi maxey diintu ka qabtaa guurka laba nin oo is guursadey/guursatey, naagtan labadaa nin mid ka mida ayey jecleyd oy guursan rabtey, waliba waxeeda intuu jaceyl dhaafey bey sheikhii sii weydiisay labadaa nin hadey is furaan kaan jeclaa ma inaan sugaa mudo/cuddo saddex bilood ah mise waa inuu nin kale guursadaa oo uu furaa oo markaas baan sugaa.

[gooni]

Arimahaan waagaan geella la joogay hadaan maqli lahaa khatar baan ku sugnaan lahaa

magaalo nalal badan wax badan baa kaaga soo baxaya waxaan xasuusta gabar firfircoon oo asian ah baan la kaftamay beri waxaan ku iri ka waran hadaad timaha dheeraysato oon wax isku darsano,waxay igu tiri qalbigayga yaa nin ah waxba kuu nafaci maayo waxaan u sheegay inaanan qalbiga dan ka lahayn hadaad qalabkii wadato,

 

Dumarka xal waa loo raadin karaa laakiin ragga jasiirad cidlaa ha la geeyo kuligood mujtamacan ha laga dhex saaro,waxaase la yaab leh xaquuq gaaleedka in loo ogolaado inay is guursadaan hadana caruur korsadaan.

[Tallaabo]

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.

[Tallaabo]

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.

[Tallaabo]

Apophis;964887 wrote:

Tyranny of liberalism, it'll pass.

Surely the "tyranny of liberalism" will pass when ignorance takes root in society.

[warsamaale]

this discussion is just a classic illustration of why multiculturalism and coexistence will utterly fail in the west. they have let in peoples whose values and morals ( despite their supposed western education ) can only be described as medieval. i look forward gleefully to this unfolding culture clash.

[Abu-Salman]

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?

[tutu]

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

 

A report released Monday by Amnesty International says 38 African countries criminalize homosexuality.

 

In four of those - Mauritania, northern Nigeria,

southern Somalia

and Sudan - the punishment is death.

Is the punishment different in northern Somalia?

[Tallaabo]

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

[Tallaabo]

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

[NGONGE]

Reeyo;964815 wrote:

It is truly a deterioration of the human. If we have redefined 'marriage', a union between man and woman for procreating to- same-sex and then we have lost greatly. Xin is not being dramatic but stating a fact.

 

Those of you that believe this is a 'white' 'gaalo' problem. Look at you location and then look at the value system your children are growing up in.

We redefined marraige? Xiin is stating a fact? I don't think you should be the judge on what is "dramatic" after such a start.

 

As for what the gaalo do, well unless you plan to bring up your kids as gaalo themselves none of these "value systems" will matter.

 

Talk sense, people. Talk sense. Baritaad nago waalaysan "Toronto baan jooga, cadha i haysa, kaneesad ba nala ag dhisay".

[N.O.R.F]

The culminated of a concerted campaign over 30 years. Slowly slowly we saw them in comedy shows and movies as funny 'likeable' characters setting up one platform after another where it is seen as perfectly normal by many in the west today. Bringing in such laws was only a matter of time.

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

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?

listen athi you live in Saudi Arabia right. If that is the case, just stop and focus on the fact that women in 2013 are not allowed to drive in your country. your like a baby signing up as a long distance running.

[N.O.R.F]

Lol. He doesn't live in Saudi. Can you address his points now?