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.

I know people who start-off an argument like this. They don't believe in the strength of their argument and know that it is likely to be disarmed, so they sound-off first to get under the skin of the opponent, thereby distracting from the main issue which they(the proponents) are unable to make a credible case. So, nice try, but fail!!!

logiboy03:
1) Bestiality is illegal because of consent. Animals cant give consent. Sex between two parties needs consent or it is RA.PE!

Oh what a shallow logic. Just answer these simple questions:

Do we seek consent before we slaughter animals and use them for food??
Do we seek consent before we imprison and domesticate animals and make it our slave? depriving them of dignity to exist as nature has endowed them to exist??
Do we seek consent before we castrate pets, depriving them of rights to love and procreate just as we humans confer the same rights to ourselves??
Do we seek consent before we destroy forests which are the natural and most conducive habitats for these animals??
etc etc

But now we want to have s.ex with them and you come screaming "consent!! consent!!!" Somebody please define hypocricy for me again

Obviously you don't know anything about bestiality. Go to any porn site and look through the bestiality sections, it would look pretty obvious that the dogs and horses are enjoying themselves.

logicboy03:
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

Another silly argument. You are outlawing a practice because of the risks you perceive in such practice, No?? Do we now ban driving because people die everyday from motor accidents? Do we ban anal sex because you are more likely to contact STDs through it than through vaginal sex? Do we ban guns because criminals use it as a tool for crime? Do we ban sexy dressing by women because they provoke rape?? I could go on and on to expose the utter illogicality of this line of thinking, but I believe the message is clear enough for anybody who calls himself a "wise man".

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

So you agree then that Piers was wrong to call the discussant silly for asking if siblings have the right to marry, don't you?

okeyxyz:

I know people who start-off an argument like this. They don't believe in the strength of their argument and know that it is likely to be disarmed, so they sound-off first to get under the skin of the opponent, thereby distracting from the main issue which they(the proponents) are unable to make a credible case. So, nice try, but fail!!!



Oh what a shallow strawmanish logic. Just answer these simple questions:

Do we seek consent before we slaughter an animal and use it for food??
Do we seek consent before we imprison and domesticate animals and make it our slave? depriving them of dignity to exist as nature has endowed them to exist??
Do we seek consent before we castrate pets, depriving them of rights to love and procreate just as we humans confer the same rights to ourselves??
Do we seek consent before we destroy forests which are the natural and most conducive habitats for these animals??
etc etc

But now we want to have s.ex with them and you come screaming "consent!! consent!!!" Somebody please define hypocricy for me again

Obviously you don't know anything about bestiality. Go to any porn site and look through the bestiality sections, it would look pretty obvious that the dogs and horses are enjoying themselves.




Another silly argument. You are outlawing a practice because of the risks you perceive in such practice, No?? Do we now ban driving because people die everyday from motor accidents? Do we ban anal sex because you are more likely to contact STDs through it than through vaginal sex? Do we ban guns because criminals use it as a tool for crime? Do we ban sexy dressing by women because they provoke rape?? I could go on and on to expose the utter illogicality of this line of thinking, but I believe the message is clear enough for anybody who calls himself a "wise man".

Beautiful.

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, 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??

Homos.exuality is a victimless indulgence, just like adult heterosexuality. Paedophilia isn't. It violates underrage people who aren't of the age of consent. Same with bestiality. A goat or sheep can hardly tell you not to poke it's behind and can't report you to the authorities or fight you off. Incest may be outlawed but I couldn't really care less if a brother and sister fancy each other. I'd only care if one was violating an underaged relative - like a father and young child. Not really the same thing.

Ihedinobi:
So you agree then that Piers was wrong to call the discussant silly for asking if siblings have the right to marry, don't you?

Especially if he asked about brothers, like you did in the op, my answer should be obvious, no?

Joshthefirst: 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.

What are you going to use to defeat evil me, your hate, foo.lishness or bigotry?

Ihedinobi:

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?

What a response. That's like asking how would you prove a baby or toddler wrong if he insisted they gave a man consent. That's reta.rded.

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?

Inbreeding has long been associated with creating a gene pool of deformities. That's not a positive. Homosexualities lack of breeding is only relevant if the sole purpose of relationships is breeding - which is absurd.

okeyxyz:

I know people who start-off an argument like this. They don't believe in the strength of their argument and know that it is likely to be disarmed, so they sound-off first to get under the skin of the opponent, thereby distracting from the main issue which they(the proponents) are unable to make a credible case. So, nice try, but fail!!!



Oh what a shallow logic. Just answer these simple questions:

Do we seek consent before we slaughter animals and use them for food??
Do we seek consent before we imprison and domesticate animals and make it our slave? depriving them of dignity to exist as nature has endowed them to exist??
Do we seek consent before we castrate pets, depriving them of rights to love and procreate just as we humans confer the same rights to ourselves??
Do we seek consent before we destroy forests which are the natural and most conducive habitats for these animals??
etc etc

But now we want to have s.ex with them and you come screaming "consent!! consent!!!" Somebody please define hypocricy for me again

Obviously you don't know anything about bestiality. Go to any porn site and look through the bestiality sections, it would look pretty obvious that the dogs and horses are enjoying themselves.




Another silly argument. You are outlawing a practice because of the risks you perceive in such practice, No?? Do we now ban driving because people die everyday from motor accidents? Do we ban anal sex because you are more likely to contact STDs through it than through vaginal sex? Do we ban guns because criminals use it as a tool for crime? Do we ban sexy dressing by women because they provoke rape?? I could go on and on to expose the utter illogicality of this line of thinking, but I believe the message is clear enough for anybody who calls himself a "wise man".

nice finishing. I hope lb will get your point.

wiegraf:

What are you going to use to defeat evil me, your hate, foo.lishness or bigotry?

why would I use hate, foolishness and bigotry to fight hate, foolishness and bigotry?

No, I'll use wisdom and speaking the truth to pull men from stupidity and give them love and humility.

Watch out.

^^
Ok

okeyxyz:

Oh what a shallow logic. Just answer these simple questions:

Do we seek consent before we slaughter animals and use them for food??
Do we seek consent before we imprison and domesticate animals and make it our slave? depriving them of dignity to exist as nature has endowed them to exist??
Do we seek consent before we castrate pets, depriving them of rights to love and procreate just as we humans confer the same rights to ourselves??
Do we seek consent before we destroy forests which are the natural and most conducive habitats for these animals??
etc etc

But now we want to have s.ex with them and you come screaming "consent!! consent!!!" Somebody please define hypocricy for me again

Obviously you don't know anything about bestiality. Go to any porn site and look through the bestiality sections, it would look pretty obvious that the dogs and horses are enjoying themselves.

There are some interesting points there, but still far from perfect analogies.
Domesticating and castrating animals doesn't necessarily reduce their quality of life. There's a reason domesticated livetock, even left to roam free, still return to their "prison". Centuries and millenia of breeding has made them adaptable to the conditions. We're omnivores and our ancestors from time immemorial were meat eaters and the same animals we eat are preyed on in the wild. I wouldn't say feeding on animals violates their rights. Except we're expected to feed on each other. There is legislation though against cruelty against animals, inhumane living conditions and inhumane killing of animals. Naturally, we hold our welfare as humans higher than that of animals and this sadly does put us in conflict with their interests, such as destroying their natural habitats so we could build homes.

Having sex with animals though is a completely unjustifiable act against creatures incapable of reasoned consent. Dogs being trained to enjoy sex with women doesn't justify consent anymore than an 8-year-old boy being trained to do the same. They are dogs for goodness sake! How on earth is that comparable to 2 consenting adult men or women having an attraction for each other?

I really would love to weigh in on this discussion but sleep calls. if the thread is still alive by day break, I'll certainly join in.

Ihedinobi: 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?

It is indeed a silly question. The Christian feels that a straight man shouldn't have more rights than a gay man so what is the relevance of asking whether two gay brothers should have the right to marry?

Do we wonder whether a brother and sister can get married while a man and a woman can get married?

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, 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??

Why is heterosexuality acceptable but incest, bestiality and paedophilia aren't acceptable?

Ihedinobi:
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?

[img]http://4.bp..com/-65Su0h5v2FM/UJvb1V3P8NI/AAAAAAAAC64/6t-6GjADKzE/s1600/are_you_kidding_me_rage_face_meme_poster-r3726a85aa584458cad9751d80824bbf6_jih_400.jpg[/img]


If you believe that animals can talk, go back to nursery school

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

Inces.t being a gray area doesnt mean that Piers Morgan is wrong. The fact remains that the christian was silly to ask the question of ince.st while talking about gay rights. It was pointless.

Ihedinobi:
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?

When I said that inces.t is a gray area, I wasnt kidding. Now, for creationists like yourself, your ridiculous beliefs cloud your common sense. You believe that all human beings came from the continuous inces.tuous breeding of offsprings of Adam and Eve for many generations.

Who knows, maybe you could try ince.st in your family and see how many generations your family would last.


Guy, educate yourself.


Furthermore homosexuality doesnt stop others from being heterosexuals. Your argument fails both ways.

Ihedinobi:
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.

Jesus Christ, your premise never meets your conclusion. The christian was being silly. Guy, try to have some sense. smh. You can calle Piers silly as long as you want. Striklymi and I have already shown how you messed up

okeyxyz:

I know people who start-off an argument like this. They don't believe in the strength of their argument and know that it is likely to be disarmed, so they sound-off first to get under the skin of the opponent, thereby distracting from the main issue which they(the proponents) are unable to make a credible case. So, nice try, but fail!!!

Okay....let's see if you can disarm my argument. You will inevitably fail as usual. smh

okeyxyz:
Oh what a shallow logic. Just answer these simple questions:

Do we seek consent before we slaughter animals and use them for food??
Do we seek consent before we imprison and domesticate animals and make it our slave? depriving them of dignity to exist as nature has endowed them to exist??
Do we seek consent before we castrate pets, depriving them of rights to love and procreate just as we humans confer the same rights to ourselves??
Do we seek consent before we destroy forests which are the natural and most conducive habitats for these animals??
etc etc

But now we want to have s.ex with them and you come screaming "consent!! consent!!!" Somebody please define hypocricy for me again

Obviously you don't know anything about bestiality. Go to any porn site and look through the bestiality sections, it would look pretty obvious that the dogs and horses are enjoying themselves.

See how, this tool embarrasses himself?

1) Ra.pe and consent apply only to sex. Bringing in animal slaughter and domestication is just a strawman. Legal se.x is regulated by consent. Se.x is a different issue from murder. One has to do with consent the other doesnt. I can get consent from a woman to have sex with her and murder her. I would be tried for only murder if I went ahead to do the two things. Think about that.

2) The most common porn sites do not have a bestiality section. Try again. See how you lie?

okeyxyz:
Another silly argument. You are outlawing a practice because of the risks you perceive in such practice, No?? Do we now ban driving because people die everyday from motor accidents? Do we ban anal sex because you are more likely to contact STDs through it than through vaginal sex? Do we ban guns because criminals use it as a tool for crime? Do we ban sexy dressing by women because they provoke rape?? I could go on and on to expose the utter illogicality of this line of thinking, but I believe the message is clear enough for anybody who calls himself a "wise man".

See how you misread?
-I clearly said that using laws to ban inc.est just like that can lead to hypocrisy because it is a gray area. Now, you base your whole argument on me trying to use laws to ban inc.est
-I also clearly used the word "frowned upon" and not "banned" or "ince.st is illegal"

okeyxyz:

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:



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...

That point is very weak because some Churches do not see homosexuality as sinful. Depriving those Churches from wedding their Gay folks would be you guilty of not letting them practice their beliefs.

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

Which church? Aren't you aware that some Churches permit homosexuality? What gives anyone the right to deprive them from wedding their Gay couples when it is not against the teachings of their church?

If you insist that they should not wed then you would be imposing your own beliefs on them when they obviously do not share them.

striktlymi:

That point is very weak because some Churches do not see homosexuality as sinful. Depriving those Churches from wedding their Gay folks would be you guilty of not letting them practice their beliefs.

Well said

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

In this case LB's argument has been very potent. At least for now.

Ihedinobi:
It's up to you to prove that.

Why would I need to prove it when you have been gracious enough to provide us with the evidence? Your comment below is the proof you need;

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.

You did not quote Morgan directly but made an implied meaning to his question. That is the same as reading meaning to what he said.

Ihedinobi:
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.

I have addressed the above already.

Ihedinobi:
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?

Now you make a U-turn to the argument my OP tried to show its silliness. It goes to show that I understood perfectly the argument the Christian dude was trying to make. I still think Morgan was right to call it silly.

Your comment can be modified thus:

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


.....looking at the above modification to your comment, would you say that is a good argument against Heterosexual marriages? If it is, then I concede that you are right but if it is not then why use it against Gay marriages?

Ihedinobi:
I hope you get it now.

You have already demonstrated that I got it right all along.

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

You mean just like incesst fits in perfectly with respect to your modified comment?

Obi1kenobi:

Homos.exuality is a victimless indulgence, just like adult heterosexuality. Paedophilia isn't. It violates underrage people who aren't of the age of consent. Same with bestiality. A goat or sheep can hardly tell you not to poke it's behind and can't report you to the authorities or fight you off. Incest may be outlawed but I couldn't really care less if a brother and sister fancy each other. I'd only care if one was violating an underaged relative - like a father and young child. Not really the same thing.

I think you still missed okey's response.

What he is saying is, (using your words) if goats cannot report to the authorities when they observe they are on the verge of being used for pepper-soup, and also used, why do we now speak of authority when it comes to sleeping with them?

The most important question is Marriage a right or privilege?

I think it is a right coupled with the rights to family and PRIVACY. However marriage in Nigeria is still defined as one man, one woman notwithstanding customary marriage and customary same sex marriages obtainable in parts of this country.

Everyone has the right to marry albeit a heterosexual union, and really homosexuals can marry the opposite sex.

This debate is actually on morality not marriage per se. Is it fair for natural heterosexuals to have a legally recognized union with the special incentives and leave homosexual unions bare without matrimonial rights?

Then there are God's wishes to consider. But considering the fact that this debate is NOT within the Church, everyone's moral opinion must be weighed.

And shouldn't everyone's right to privacy include the right to exhibit their own madness in so far it does not cross the boundary of privacy.

Homosexuality is clearly not bestiality or inces.t. Homosexuality is same sex intercourse/union and obviously bestiality and inces.t don't share that same meaning. It is very much possible to distance those two from homosexuality. Homosexuality is an independent topic of its own. The moral implication thereof are different.

striktlymi:
That point is very weak because some Churches do not see homosexuality as sinful. Depriving those Churches from wedding their Gay folks would be you guilty of not letting them practice their beliefs.

I'm talking about christianity here. Now any church which believes itself to be christian, yet celebrates homosexuality would have to demonstrate to me how this is based on christian doctrine. You obviously seem to be in this class of people. So please explain to us how homosexuality is godly.

Obi1kenobi:
There are some interesting points there, but still far from perfect analogies.
Domesticating and castrating animals doesn't necessarily reduce their quality of life. There's a reason domesticated livetock, even left to roam free, still return to their "prison". Centuries and millenia of breeding has made them adaptable to the conditions. We're omnivores and our ancestors from time immemorial were meat eaters and the same animals we eat are preyed on in the wild. I wouldn't say feeding on animals violates their rights. Except we're expected to feed on each other. There is legislation though against cruelty against animals, inhumane living conditions and inhumane killing of animals. Naturally, we hold our welfare as humans higher than that of animals and this sadly does put us in conflict with their interests, such as destroying their natural habitats so we could build homes.

Having sex with animals though is a completely unjustifiable act against creatures incapable of reasoned consent. Dogs being trained to enjoy sex with women doesn't justify consent anymore than an 8-year-old boy being trained to do the same. They are dogs for goodness sake! How on earth is that comparable to 2 consenting adult men or women having an attraction for each other?

#What?? So You believe that animals love to be enslaved by us, abused, slaughtered for food, castrated and deprived of dignity and freedom to find their natural identity but somehow they object to us having sex with them?? Do you not see how you defeat yourself with this turnaround??

thehomer:

Why is heterosexuality acceptable but incest, bestiality and paedophilia aren't acceptable?

So Homose.xuality, inc.est, bestiality, ped.ophilia, nec.rophilia are perfectly natural and acceptable se.xual behavior then?? Just like heterose.xuality? That's the argument I wanted you to make instead of giving homose.xuality special treatment. So, go ahead and make the case.

Kay 17: The most important question is Marriage a right or privilege?

I think it is a right coupled with the rights to family and PRIVACY. However marriage in Nigeria is still defined as one man, one woman notwithstanding customary marriage and customary same sex marriages obtainable in parts of this country.

Everyone has the right to marry albeit a heterosexual union, and really homosexuals can marry the opposite sex.

This debate is actually on morality not marriage per se. Is it fair for natural heterosexuals to have a legally recognized union with the special incentives and leave homosexual unions bare without matrimonial rights?

Then there are God's wishes to consider. But considering the fact that this debate is NOT within the Church, everyone's moral opinion must be weighed.

And shouldn't everyone's right to privacy include the right to exhibit their own madness in so far it does not cross the boundary of privacy.

Homosexuality is clearly not bestiality or inces.t. Homosexuality is same sex intercourse/union and obviously bestiality and inces.t don't share that same meaning. It is very much possible to distance those two from homosexuality. Homosexuality is an independent topic of its own. The moral implication thereof are different.

This would have been true if both parties were of different belief system.

okeyxyz:

I'm talking about christianity here. Now any church which believes itself to be christian, yet celebrates homosexuality would have to demonstrate to me how this is based on christian doctrine. You obviously seem to be in this class of people. So please explain to us how homosexuality is godly.

You miss the point by a mile.

We are talking about rights of a people with respect to Homosexuality and not the Christian values. In this case the point of reference should be the constitution (i.e what should be or not be in it) as against Sacred scriptures.

okeyxyz:

So Homose.xuality, inc.est, bestiality, ped.ophilia, nec.rophilia are perfectly natural and acceptable se.xual behavior then?? Just like heterose.xuality? That's the argument I wanted you to make instead of giving homose.xuality special treatment. So, go ahead and make the case.

That is not an argument I'm interested in making.
Why do you give heterosexuality special treatment?

Yeah, gay people have the same rights as straight people EXCEPT the right to marry. That right will not be accepted here in Nigeria because it is a abominable perversion of the natural order of things.

striktlymi:

You miss the point by a mile.

We are talking about rights of a people with respect to Homosexuality and not the Christian values. In this case the point of reference should be the constitution (i.e what should be or not be in it) as against Sacred scriptures.

Bros you better learn to be consistent when you debate. A few posts ago you were trying to make us see how homosexuality is not a sin according to some christian churches. Now I'm asking you to demonstrate this POV from christian doctrine, only for you to abandon the very same line of reasoning which you asserted, telling us this is not a christian issue. Well, if it's not a christian issue then why were you earlier trying to prove that homosexuality is no sin and that it is right for christian churches to celebrate it with their gay marriages? If you had established that you were making a secular argument in the first place, I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to point you in the proper context of @Joshthefirst's points being that gay marriages should not be celebrated in church.

But you were fully aware of this christian context when you argued for gay marriages in christian churches. But unfortunately you cannot find support for this in any doctrine. Now you are trying to escape from this doctrinal hole you dug yourself into.