Yesterday, Piers Morgan on CNN aired an earlier discussion he had with two Christians and a third guy that I think was gay and spoke for gay Christians. Piers asked one of the discussants in that recording whether he thought he as a straight man should have more rights than a homosexual man. This discussant whose name I forget now did not try to answer it directly, but Piers wasn't too pleased with that and demanded a direct answer. He then gave a direct answer: No. But he followed his answer with a question of his own. He asked Piers if he thought that two gay brothers should have the right to marry. Piers responded that he was being silly.

I personally thought that Piers was being either funny or dense when he gave that response. I mean, what makes one case silly and not the other, right?

The question posed to Morgan is indeed silly. The question can equally be: Can you allow a man and a woman of the same parents marry? In this case one can argue that if Gays are outlawed from getting married based on that question then straight people should be outlawed too.

striktlymi: The question posed to Morgan is indeed silly. The question can equally be: Can you allow a man and a woman of the same parents marry? In this case one can argue that if Gays are outlawed from getting married based on that question then straight people should be outlawed too.

I don't think you understood the discussant. The question was not proof or argument that gays should not marry, it was merely an illustration of the underlying dishonesty in Piers's question. Piers implied by his question that the position that gay marriage and gay behavior should not be legalized denies that gay people have equal rights with straight people. Do you think that to be the case?

Ihedinobi:
I don't think you understood the discussant. The question was not proof or argument that gays should not marry, it was merely an illustration of the underlying dishonesty in Piers's question. Piers implied by his question that the position that gay marriage and gay behavior should not be legalized denies that gay people have equal rights with straight people. Do you think that to be the case?

@ BOLD;
THIS IS WHAT PISSES ME OFF ABOUT THIS DUDE CALLED IHEDINOBI. WHEN SOMEONE UTTERLY DESTROYS HIS FAILED TALKING POINTS, IHEDINOBI CLAIMS THAT HE IS BEING MISUNDERSTOOD



Striklymi answered your op very well. The question posed to Piers Morgan was indeed silly. It was a failed strawman created to distract people from the point that a gay man should have the same right as a straight man!

Seriously- what point was the christian trying to make by asking if two brothers should be allowed to get married? Was he using that against gay marriage? Seriously? Does he forget that one can also ask- "should a brother and sister be allowed to get married?"

Ihedinobi:
I don't think you understood the discussant. The question was not proof or argument that gays should not marry, it was merely an illustration of the underlying dishonesty in Piers's question. Piers implied by his question that the position that gay marriage and gay behavior should not be legalized denies that gay people have equal rights with straight people. Do you think that to be the case?

How was Piers Morgan dishonest? Seriously?

Logicboy03:

@ BOLD;
THIS IS WHAT PISSES ME OFF ABOUT THIS DUDE CALLED IHEDINOBI. WHEN SOMEONE UTTERLY DESTROYS HIS FAILED TALKING POINTS, IHEDINOBI CLAIMS THAT HE IS BEING MISUNDERSTOOD



Striklymi answered your op very well. The question posed to Piers Morgan was indeed silly. It was a failed strawman created to distract people from the point that a gay man should have the same right as a straight man!

Seriously- what point was the christian trying to make by asking if two brothers should be allowed to get married? Was he using that against gay marriage? Seriously? Does he forget that one can also ask- "should a brother and sister be allowed to get married?"

Lol. Don't burst a vessel because of me abeg.

He actually asked that question too. The point that he was trying to make is that if it is a question of rights, what was to decide who had what rights? How do two men or two women have the right to marry and two siblings, same sex and opposing genders, don't? Why the difference? Based on what are these rights determined?

Logicboy03:


How was Piers Morgan dishonest? Seriously?

I already explained in the same post you're responding to. You should answer the question I asked in it.

Ihedinobi:
Lol. Don't burst a vessel because of me abeg.

He actually asked that question too. The point that he was trying to make is that if it is a question of rights, what was to decide who had what rights? How do two men or two women have the right to marry and two siblings, same sex and opposing genders, don't? Why the difference? Based on what are these rights determined?

Then why did you cut out the second part of the question? The part where he asked about a brother and sister getting married?

You are a dishonest fellow....apparentl,yu thought that asking about brother-brother marriage was a good attack on gay marriage but obviously, you switched after striklymi disarmed the failed logic in that question. Mtchew


Is it me or is it that christians can not see the difference between
-Homosexuality
-In.cest
-beast.iality

If Nigeria legalizes gay marriage, most other african nations against it will follow suit.

No one should have a right to get married publicly by the church with another person of the same sex, or take the life of an innocent baby in the womb. They are not just sins, this extreme peversions damage our society and warp our children psychologically.

If we legalize them, it means we generally agree with them publicly and support them generally.

Unfortunately, nigeria will most probably support these things in the near future. We are in the world afterall.

Logicboy03:


Then why did you cut out the second part of the question? The part where he asked about a brother and sister getting married?

You are a dishonest fellow....apparentl,yu thought that asking about brother-brother marriage was a good attack on gay marriage but obviously, you switched after striklymi disarmed the failed logic in that question. Mtchew


Is it me or is it that christians can not see the difference between
-Homosexuality
-In.cest
-beast.iality

Lol @ 'cut out'. What difference does it make if he said brother-sister or brother-brother. If I was being dishonest, I would not have even offered that he said it, would I? Switched fire. Abeg rest.

What is the difference between them? That is the question here. Why is one acceptable and others are not?

Joshthefirst: If Nigeria legalizes gay marriage, most other african nations against it will follow suit.

No one should have a right to get married publicly by the church with another person of the same sex, or take the life of an innocent baby in the womb. They are not just sins, this extreme peversions damage our society and warp our children psychologically.

If we legalize them, it means we generally agree with them publicly and support them generally.

Unfortunately, nigeria will most probably support these things in the near future. We are in the world afterall.

I don't see this coming bro

Logicboy03:
Is it me or is it that christians can not see the difference between
-Homosexuality
-In.cest
-beast.iality

Please do explain to us. Why is homose.xuality an acceptable se.xuality and inc.est, bestiality and pedophilia is not. How is homos.exuality such a natural se.xual behaviour and the rest are not?? Do you mean to make the case that bestiality, inc.est, pedophilia are well within the control of the people experiencing these se.xual orientations and that it is a behavior they choose for themselves rather than a biology they find themselves to be made-up of??

Joshthefirst: If Nigeria legalizes gay marriage, most other african nations against it will follow suit.

No one should have a right to get married publicly by the church with another person of the same sex, or take the life of an innocent baby in the womb. They are not just sins, this extreme peversions damage our society and warp our children psychologically.

If we legalize them, it means we generally agree with them publicly and support them generally.

Unfortunately, nigeria will most probably support these things in the near future. We are in the world afterall.

Is this a fact or just your random opinion based on you illogical faith?

okeyxyz:

Please do explain to us. Why is homose.xuality an acceptable se.xuality and inc.est, bestiality and pedophilia is not. How is homos.exuality such a natural se.xual behaviour and the rest are not?? Do you mean to make the case that bestiality, incest, pedophilia are well within the control of the people experiencing these se.xual orientations.

If a dictionary cant tell you the difference, why should I waste my time?

Please, I'm very allergic to willful ignorance.

Ihedinobi:
I don't think you understood the discussant. The question was not proof or argument that gays should not marry, it was merely an illustration of the underlying dishonesty in Piers's question.

My OP was meant to show how silly the dude's illustration is.

Ihedinobi:
Piers implied by his question that the position that gay marriage and gay behavior should not be legalized denies that gay people have equal rights with straight people. Do you think that to be the case?

The above was not stated in your OP. The only question Morgan asked with respect to your OP was:

Ihedinobi:
Piers asked one of the discussants in that recording whether he thought he as a straight man should have more rights than a homosexual man.

The bold is quite direct and I see no room for dishonesty there. Unless you are saying there is more to the OP than you have let on.

Logicboy03:


If a dictionary cant tell you the difference, why should I waste my time?

Please, I'm very allergic to willful ignorance.

Exactly my problem with Piers's response. Neither of you can say what is morally acceptable about homosexuality that fails to apply to incest and bestiality. So you call others silly to cover up your ignorance and confusion. That's the dishonesty that I referred to.

Logicboy03:

If a dictionary cant tell you the difference, why should I waste my time?

Please, I'm very allergic to willful ignorance.

Typical liberal response . Speak of "willful ignorance"

You can't handle and argue logic methodically, so resort to dictionaries and references. The issues here are not the definitions of these sexualities, rather is why one se.xual condition is actively promoted while others are suppressed. So Mr "Gay rights", why are there no rights for other categories of sexuality?? Are we not talking about equality here? Why is a homos.exual more human(and more rightful) than a person of other sexualities.

striktlymi:

My OP was meant to show how silly the dude's illustration is.

Sorry, I still don't see it.

The above was not stated in your OP. The only question Morgan asked with respect to your OP was:



The bold is quite direct and I see no room for dishonesty there. Unless you are saying there is more to the OP than you have let on.

That you do not see it does not mean that there is none. My OP is complete. I left nothing vital out. I made clear why I think that Piers was being dishonest. Why should he say that the discussant was being silly when he was asked whether he thought that two gay brothers have the right to marry? What was the difference between that case and the homosexuals that he implied that he was asking the discussant about?

Joshthefirst: If Nigeria legalizes gay marriage, most other african nations against it will follow suit.

No one should have a right to get married publicly by the church with another person of the same sex, or take the life of an innocent baby in the womb. They are not just sins, this extreme peversions damage our society and warp our children psychologically.

If we legalize them, it means we generally agree with them publicly and support them generally.

Unfortunately, nigeria will most probably support these things in the near future. We are in the world afterall.

I do not agree with the bold. A law against Gay marriages, necessarily infringes on individual rights, imo.

Ihedinobi:
Exactly my problem with Piers's response. Neither of you can say what is morally acceptable about homosexuality that fails to apply to incest and bestiality. So you call others silly to cover up your ignorance and confusion. That's the dishonesty that I referred to.

Ihedinobi:
Exactly my problem with Piers's response. Neither of you can say what is morally acceptable about homosexuality that fails to apply to incest and bestiality. So you call others silly to cover up your ignorance and confusion. That's the dishonesty that I referred to.

Really? Then let me educate you. But know this, it is inevitable that people like me will always be condescending to people like you (christian conservatives and fundamentalists) when you guys keep using faith instead of logic to discuss laws that affect human beings.


1) Bestiality is illegal because of consent. Animals cant give consent. Sex between two parties needs consent or it is RA.PE!
2) Inc.est is a gray area. It is frowned upon because of the inherent tendencies for im.becilic/retar.ded/deformed children as a result of offsprings from such marriage. It is also frowned upon because of the inherent tendency for child abuse. Age of consent is 16 or low as 14....now imagine inces.tuous marriages are accepted in the society and a father grooms his daughter from the age of 10 for future sex at 14/16. That danger is there


Homosexuality and heterosexuality in their legal form do not carry the baggage that ince.st and bestiality do. Any argument for heterosexuality works for homosexuality....a fact that you fail to understand.


Also note that I didnt say that ince.st is illegal...because it is a very gray area. It is dangerous but one might fall into hypocrisy if using laws just like that to ban it.

Ihedinobi:
Sorry, I still don't see it.

How come LB saw it and you didn't?

Ihedinobi:
That you do not see it does not mean that there is none. My OP is complete. I left nothing vital out. I made clear why I think that Piers was being dishonest.

What you did basically was read meaning to the question Morgan asked.

Ihedinobi:
Why should he say that the discussant was being silly when he was asked whether he thought that two gay brothers have the right to marry?

I already answered that question in my OP.

Ihedinobi:
What was the difference between that case and the homosexuals that he implied that he was asking the discussant about?

LB has answered that already.

Incest is a different topic entirely.

If we want to consider incest in relation to Gay marriages, then we would have no choice but consider incest in relation to straight marriages too.

okeyxyz:

Typical liberal response . Speak of "willful ignorance"

You can't handle and argue logic methodically, so resort to dictionaries and references. The issues here are not the definitions of these sexualities, rather is why one se.xual condition is actively promoted while others are suppressed. So Mr "Gay rights", why are there no rights for other categories of sexuality?? Are we not talking about equality here? Why is a homos.exual more human(and more rightful) than a person of other sexualities.

Yawn.

Logicboy03:
Yawn.

I see I have shut you up rigorously. So when you can't summon a counter argument you take a humor-shot and dodge.

Bye bye to you too

okeyxyz:

I see I have shut you up rigorously. So when you can't summon a counter argument you take a humor-shot and dodge.

Bye bye to you too

"fools claim victory when a wise man keeps silent"

striktlymi:
I do not agree with the bold. A law against Gay marriages, necessarily infringes on individual rights, imo.

You fail to grasp the guy's points. you are jumping off a tangent, responding out of context. This is the guy's context below:

Joshthefirst: No one should have a right to get married publicly by the church with another person of the same sex...

He clearly declares his position in line with christian doctrine and context, while you (choose to) ignore it. Now do people not have a right to practice their religion?? Are you redefining christian doctrine?? If you are, then please state so, so we know how to argue with you, context by by context...

Logicboy03:


Really? Then let me educate you. But know this, it is inevitable that people like me will always be condescending to people like you (christian conservatives and fundamentalists) when you guys keep using faith instead of logic to discuss laws that affect human beings.

Have I ever complained about your condescension?

1) Bestiality is illegal because of consent. Animals cant give consent. Sex between two parties needs consent or it is RA.PE!

What you mean is that we do not understand animal communication so we do not know when they are giving consent, isn't that right? Or do you honestly believe that animals are incapable of communication? That being the case, how would you prove a given man wrong if he insisted that his horse gave him consent?

2) Inc.est is a gray area. It is frowned upon because of the inherent tendencies for im.becilic/retar.ded/deformed children as a result of offsprings from such marriage. It is also frowned upon because of the inherent tendency for child abuse. Age of consent is 16 or low as 14....now imagine inces.tuous marriages are accepted in the society and a father grooms his daughter from the age of 10 for future sex at 14/16. That danger is there

In other words, incest is not necessarily wrong and Piers was the silly one.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality in their legal form do not carry the baggage that ince.st and bestiality do. Any argument for heterosexuality works for homosexuality....a fact that you fail to understand.

They don't? Incest, at least, ensures the continuation of the human species even if with deformities. Homosexuality ensures the exact opposite. Doesn't that qualify as baggage?

Also note that I didnt say that ince.st is illegal...because it is a very gray area. It is dangerous but one might fall into hypocrisy if using laws just like that to ban it.

Sure, I noticed. I also noticed how that goes to show that it was Piers who was being silly. Incesst is, according to you, possibly permissible, so he should not have called the Christian discussant silly. I am fully convinced that you will soon notice the hypocrisy involved in outlawing bestiality too.

striktlymi:


I do not agree with the bold. A law against Gay marriages, necessarily infringes on individual rights, imo.

I said the church. They can go ahead and wed anywhere, but the church will never support this mockery of God amnd his authority

striktlymi:

How come LB saw it and you didn't?

Lb's sight has been proved many times on this forum to be unreliable.

What you did basically was read meaning to the question Morgan asked.

It's up to you to prove that.

I already answered that question in my OP.

I don't think so. I still do not see any reason to believe that you understood the OP. I said that the discussant asked whether Piers thought gay siblings have the right to marry each other in answer to his question as to whether the discussant thought he had more rights or should have more rights than gay people. You responded in a manner that suggested that you thought that the man was saying that gay marriages should be outlawed because gay siblings should not marry each other. That was not the case at all. The man was trying to show Piers that he asked a loaded question and it was dishonest of him to demand a yes/no response.

Obviously, straight people do not have more rights than gay people, but is marriage a right? If it is, why should gay people have it and not siblings whether homosexual and heterosexual?

I hope you get it now.

LB has answered that already.

Incest is a different topic entirely.

If we want to consider incest in relation to Gay marriages, then we would have no choice but consider incest in relation to straight marriages too.

Has he indeed? Please leave Lb to sort himself out.

I'm hoping you understand enough now to see how incesst fits into this discussion.

What an honest op honestly conflating homosex to incest in such a non dubious manner

To add to what has already been said rather well, assuming prohibiting incestuous relationships is unjust, well, obviously two wrongs don't make a right. I enslave mr x therefore it's fine to enslave mr y. Really? (I'm not even sure incest is illegal in most of the world, but meh. The stigma seems to be enough to discourage it. Unlike homosex which has been equally, or even more so, vilified. What does that tell you about homosex?);



And note, I have no issues with incest, polygamy etc. But of course most, atheists well included, disagree with me. And they at times have justified concerns. That's another issue though

wiegraf: What an honest op honestly conflating homosex to incest in such a non dubious manner

To add to what has already been said rather well, assuming prohibiting incestuous relationships is unjust, well, obviously two wrongs don't make a right. I enslave mr x therefore it's fine to enslave mr y. Really? (I'm not even sure incest is illegal in most of the world, but meh. The stigma seems to be enough to discourage it. Unlike homosex which has been equally, or even more so, vilified. What does that tell you about homosex?);



And note, I have no issues with incest, polygamy etc. But of course most, atheists well included, disagree with me. And they at times have justified concerns. That's another issue though

it tells me human beings like yourself have become self-destructive as they base their rights on selfish instincts that are to be fought against.