thehomer:

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

Bros, you are cunning, but not cunning enough and I'm not falling for your ploys. First you declare that you don't want to debate, then you challenge me make my arguments in support of a preference for heterosexuality which you clearly oppose. Why would I want to do that when you'd already declared that you are not willing to engage?? You are just afraid that you cannot defend your support for a homosexual culture, so you are looking for flaws in my own position rather than building your own case.

Try again

okeyxyz:

Bros, you are cunning, but not cunning enough and I'm not falling for your ploys. First you declare that you don't want to debate, then you challenge me make my arguments in support of a preference for heterosexuality which you clearly oppose. Why would I want to do that when you'd already declared that you are not willing to engage?? You are just afraid that you cannot defend your support for a homosexual culture, so you are looking for flaws in my own position rather than building your own case.

Try again

You must be seeing things. I clearly oppose heterosexuality?

It looks to me like you're the one who is unable to defend their opinions that opposing homosexuality infringes on people's rights. If you're going to compare homosexuality to incest or anything else, you'll have to be willing to do the same for heterosexuality. That is my point.

I can defend my support for the homosexual orientation in various ways starting from the fact that adults have their rights to the fact that it is between consenting adults.

Ishilove: 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.

What is the "natural order"? Is it in the "natural order" for humans to live in space? Or underwater?

okeyxyz:

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.

I am not going into that back and forth with you.

thehomer:

You must be seeing things. I clearly oppose heterosexuality?

I said you oppose a preference for heterosexuality. Perhaps you don't see properly

thehomer:
It looks to me like you're the one who is unable to defend their opinions that opposing homosexuality infringes on people's rights. If you're going to compare homosexuality to incest or anything else, you'll have to be willing to do the same for heterosexuality. That is my point.

I only oppose homosexuality in the context of christian doctrine(of course for christians only), not a secular/legal opposition. My involvement in this thread is in pointing out the hypocrisy of the proponents of homosexuality. They love to argue that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality, yet these same people want to suppress bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, in.cest, etc, not regarding that they are se.xual orientations just as naturally valid as they claim homosexuality to be. At least I am honest enough to categorize them together as se.xual phenomena/orientations. How about you??

thehomer:
I can defend my support for the homosexual orientation in various ways starting from the fact that adults have their rights to the fact that it is between consenting adults.

Speaking of consent, why is it that when you guys copy western cultures and arguments you don't challenge their hypocrisy?? The same people who use consent as an reason to promote homosexuality, yet they condemn and criminalize polygamy even though it's perfectly consensual.

I wonder why this thread is in the General section...



#Unfollows!

[size=18pt]I AM HOMOPHOBIC.[/size]
I DON'T GIVAFURK IF THAT IS GOOD OR BAD.

what will happen one day when a gay guy becomes president because he has rights?
No first lady.
How will you talk about family structure? what will you teach?
two gay men go out and adopt a straight child. imagine that.
if police men were gay
i feel sorry for all the gay guys trapped in this part of the world where we will not
accept such sexuality.. but I pray we never accept it. I rather have it this way
than to see men holding hands and exchanging glances and kissing on the streets
on this part of the planet.

I DON'T HATE YOU GAY GUYS, i AM JUST HOMOPHOBIC

okeyxyz:

I said you oppose a preference for heterosexuality. Perhaps you don't see properly

Looks like you don't know how to read your own words. You said:

okeyxyz:

Bros, you are cunning, but not cunning enough and I'm not falling for your ploys. First you declare that you don't want to debate, then you challenge me make my arguments in support of a preference for heterosexuality which you clearly oppose. Why would I want to do that when you'd already declared that you are not willing to engage?? You are just afraid that you cannot defend your support for a homosexual culture, so you are looking for flaws in my own position rather than building your own case.

Try again

okeyxyz:
I only oppose homosexuality in the context of christian doctrine(of course for christians only), not a secular/legal opposition. My involvement in this thread is in pointing out the hypocrisy of the proponents of homosexuality. They love to argue that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality, yet these same people want to suppress bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, in.cest, etc, not regarding that they are se.xual orientations just as naturally valid as they claim homosexuality to be. At least I am honest enough to categorize them together as se.xual phenomena/orientations. How about you??

Do you want to support bestiality, necrophilia and paedophilia while supporting heterosexuality? If you do, please say so. If you don't support it, what makes you think that supporting homosexuality should mean a support of those acts?

okeyxyz:
Speaking of consent, why is it that when you guys copy western cultures and arguments you don't challenge their hypocrisy?? The same people who use consent as an reason to promote homosexuality, yet they condemn and criminalize polygamy even though it's perfectly consensual.

You do realize that Christianity is also a foreign religion and it also condemns polygamy. Why don't you challenge your hypocrisy?

Personally, I'm not interested in condemning polygamy as long as the complex issues are clarified. Secondly, some of the Western cultures that you're attacking do recognize polygamy so you need another tack.

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.

Homosexuality is hardly victimless. If it is perpetrated infinitely, the human species as a whole will go extinct. The species is the victim here.

I like okeyxyz's answer for bestiality. Animals can't charge you to court for plotting to kill them for or clothing or fun, but it is acceptable to kill them anyway. Why should their inability to complain make it unacceptable to use them for sexxual pleasure as well?

If you agree that incesst can be acceptable, you also agree that Piers was wrong to call the Christian discussant silly when he asked about the rights of siblings to marry each other.

wiegraf:

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

Obviously yes, you agree, then.

Ihedinobi:
Homosexuality is hardly victimless. If it is perpetrated infinitely, the human species as a whole will go extinct. The species is the victim here.

I like okeyxyz's answer for bestiality. Animals can't charge you to court for plotting to kill them for or clothing or fun, but it is acceptable to kill them anyway. Why should their inability to complain make it unacceptable to use them for sexxual pleasure as well?

If you agree that incesst can be acceptable, you also agree that Piers was wrong to call the Christian discussant silly when he asked about the rights of siblings to marry each other.

The in.cest was a strawman.


Gay marriage is a different issue.


The christian remains silly

thehomer:

What is the "natural order"? Is it in the "natural order" for humans to live in space? Or underwater?

natural order is marriage leading to consummation leading to children. Our very natural physiology bear witness that homosexuality is extremely unnatural. Go ahead and wed them yourself if you have the power to do so.

The Church of Christ in Nigeria will not support this perversion

Obi1kenobi:
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.

No it isn't quite like it. A baby or toddler is human and we can understand human communication. And we also know that a human baby or toddler is still in the process of developing an ability to understand sexxual situations and to communicate intelligent consent. Because we know these things without a doubt, it would be absurd for any man to make such claim.

But we do not know for a fact that animals lack the ability to comprehend sexxual situations and communicate consent. In fact, we know that they understand sexx because of their observed sexxual habits and we know that they communicate amongst themselves. We also know that some humans form bonds with animal pets that allows them to communicate (however limitedly we might determine) with each other. It is not completely absurd to think that a given human being should claim that thwy are having consensual sexx with their dog or horse or whatever.

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.

Oh, defective humans are not a positive, but a complete absence of a new generation of humans is. Weird. Humans form romantic relationships both for companionship and for reproduction. It is the thought that the absence of an ability to breed and perpetuate the species is irrelevant that is absurd.

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?

The above is quite interesting. First you claim that taking animals from.their natural habitats and acclimatizing them to captivity is the same as doing them a favor because they are preyed on in the wild. That is quite hilarious, especially considering that we capture and domesticate them either for food or for work or for our amusement. How are we not preying on them too? Then you turn around and say that we cannot have sexx with them because they cannot give reasoned consent. That's laughable. Reasoned consent did not matter when we started taking them from their homes to accustom them to life with us serving our desires. Why does it matter now? Because they are dogs (or whatever particular animal they are)? Lol

itsrandeeboi: 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.

Sure you're welcome

thehomer:

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?

Oh yes, in fact, he did wonder that too. The relevance of that question is in the answer. Who has rights to marry and what gives them that right? Why can two gay men or lesbians marry and siblings who love each other not marry? Or should the latter also have the right to marry?

thehomer:

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

Why turn it around? You have said that the man who posed the question was silly. It is up to you now to answer why incesst, bestiality and paedophilia should not be acceptable along with homosexuality and heterosexuality. We have already granted that heterosexuals and homosexuals have equal rights.

Logicboy03:



[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

No, you probably need to do that. Are you saying that animals completely lack the ability to communicate?

Logicboy03:

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.

I have shown you the point enough times already. I'll leave off discussing this with you until you address it.

My friend, once you said that incesst is a gray area, you validated the Christian discussant's question and proved that Piers was wrong to call him silly. If there is at all a debate as to whether or not siblings, gay or heterosexual, can marry, the question had merit and its poser was not silly.

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.

The above is a lot of noise.

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

What does this have to do with anything?

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

Like I find I still have to tell you all the time, your saying it does not make it so. You have failed still to show how the Christian was being silly. And I see you still keep looking for coattails to ride on.

Logicboy: 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.

It is not a straw man. You are insisting on a double standard here. You want us to treat animals like animals in some things and treat them like humans in others. That's what he's pointing out.

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

Straw man. Where did he say that the most common porn sites have bestiality sections? He only said that when you get to the bestiality section of porn sites you will see the animals obviously enjoying themselves.

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"

Grasping at straws.

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.

As long as a church claims Christianity and subscribes to the Bible it has no right to wed gays. It must necessarily separate itself from Christianity to do so.

striktlymi:

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.

This is like saying that some states of a country do not practise its constitution even when it is bound by it and asking what gives anyone the right to call such states to order?

striktlymi:

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

It's a pity that you think so.

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;



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.

Weird. What did Piers ask? Was it not "do you as a straight man have more rights than a gay person? Are you honestly telling me that that question is not loaded?

I have addressed the above already.

That remains to be seen.

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?

I still wonder why you consider the man's question as an argument against homosexuality. Even I did not offer anu such argument. The whole question here has been, "was Piers right to call that man silly?" You have not shown how he was right. The man granted that straight people should not have more rights than gays simply because they are straight so we are not arguing for or against homosexuality. We are asking what made the man silly for asking whether siblings should have the right to marry. What is your answer to that?

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




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

It's ok. I think we can leave it at that. No point in continuing a conversation where we do not even bother to understand each other

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.

The bolded is what we are interested in. How are the moral implications different? What makes one case obviously ridiculous to question but not the other?

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.

You're not being consistent. How can churches celebrating homosexual marriage not take the Sacred Scriptures as the point of reference?

striktlymi:

I am not going into that back and forth with you.

He was right though

thehomer:

Looks like you don't know how to read your own words. You said:

Lol. Thehomer, your dishonesty is showing. He clearly said "preference for heterosexuality".

Do you want to support bestiality, necrophilia and paedophilia while supporting heterosexuality? If you do, please say so. If you don't support it, what makes you think that supporting homosexuality should mean a support of those acts?

And who here has equated supporting homosexuality with supporting those acts?

Logicboy03:



The in.cest was a strawman.


Gay marriage is a different issue.


The christian remains silly

Where have you proved that it was a straw man?

okeyxyz:


#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??

Again, the analogy just doesn't work in the case of sex. There HAS to be consent in all democratic laws about sex governing humans. Whether having sex with a human or animal, there has to be informed consent by both parties. The bolded part rules out children of a certain age, certain mentally handicapped people and animals. This doesn't govern the other things you're listing. Consent is irrelevant in killing. If you begged me to kill you and I consented and did so, I'd still be charged with murder.

You keep listing treatment of animals but there are laws governing the humane treatment of animals. And whether you care to admit it or not, the freedom and dignity you keep bleating about in the treatment of animals doesn't quite mean the same to them as it does to humans. Domesticated pets and livestock are perfectly capable of living the same quality of life as wild animals if treated well. Your cat or dog or fowl or sheep or goat would not necessarily escape from their "prison" if you left your gates open.

The parallels you're drawing are failed analogies.

Ihedinobi:
Homosexuality is hardly victimless. If it is perpetrated infinitely, the human species as a whole will go extinct. The species is the victim here.

Your inherent (rightly so from a Christian perspective) bias beclouds the argument. Homosexuality will not 'perpetrate infinitely' because it isn't infectious, there will always be heterosexuals to propagate the species.

Secondly, if we're talking about 'victims' - heterosexuality is hardly victimless either considering the population explosion it has cause with the degradation of the environment and the necessary murder of countless goats that you are now defending.

I like okeyxyz's answer for bestiality. Animals can't charge you to court for plotting to kill them for or clothing or fun, but it is acceptable to kill them anyway. Why should their inability to complain make it unacceptable to use them for sexxual pleasure as well?

Unfortunately murder of goats is a strawman - a pathetic one at that - since, as others have said, you can gain consent for someone to kill you and still be prosecuted. Killing of animals does not require consent of the animal - for the very reason that it cannot consent, which is why animal killing is regulated to avoid cruelty.

If you agree that incesst can be acceptable, you also agree that Piers was wrong to call the Christian discussant silly when he asked about the rights of siblings to marry each other.

I disagree. Introducing incest is a strawman - the rights for sibling marriage are curtailed for biological reasons, not out of 'morality' per se. Besides, that something 'can be' acceptable is not a good measure of anything really.

Heck in certain situations cannibalism can be acceptable to some (e.g. Eating your dead companions flesh in order to survive till you're rescued from a remote location) yet no one will say it is okay for people to go around eating dead bodies because of that.

The allusion to incest is a distraction and a strawman for a simple reason - the validity or otherwise of incest does not determine the validity/legitimacy of heterosexual relationships/marriage. If it does affect the validity of heterosexual unions - and if we consider both heterosexuals and homosexuals as having similar rights - then it cannot and should not affect the validity of homosexual unions.

Obi1kenobi:
Again, the analogy just doesn't work in the case of sex. There HAS to be consent in all democratic laws about sex governing humans. Whether having sex with a human or animal, there has to be informed consent by both parties. The bolded part rules out children of a certain age, certain mentally handicapped people and animals. This doesn't govern the other things you're listing. Consent is irrelevant in killing. If you begged me to kill you and I consented and did so, I'd still be charged with murder.

How is the above not a double standard? You must have informed consent to derive sexxual pleasure from human or animal but you don't need it to derive gastric pleasure from animals?

@bolded, you've heard of mercy killings, coup de grace, euthanasia? Those who do it are not considered culpable for murder, you know.

You keep listing treatment of animals but there are laws governing the humane treatment of animals. And whether you care to admit it or not, the freedom and dignity you keep bleating about in the treatment of animals doesn't quite mean the same to them as it does to humans. Domesticated pets and livestock are perfectly capable of living the same quality of life as wild animals if treated well. Your cat or dog or fowl or sheep or goat would not necessarily escape from their "prison" if you left your gates open.

The parallels you're drawing are failed analogies.

Because you have accustomed an animal, possibly against its own will, to living away from its natural habitat, you decide that it is having the same quality of life as wild animals? That is akin to saying that slaves who have been acclimatized to servitude are having the same quality of life as their free counterparts simply because they won't leave if you set them free to do so. Stockholm's syndrome comes to mind.

Again, if freedom and whatever may.not necessarily mean the same thing to animals that they mean to us, why do you presume that sexx means the same to them that it means to us?

Having gone through most of the thread, I must ask, are we talking about incest, pedophilia and bestiality or we are supposed to talk on homosexuality?!

Homosexuality is definitely not inces.t nor pedophilia nor bestiality, and the moral objections thereof cannot operate against it.

Joshthefirst mentioned that marriages are for the sole purpose of reproduction. That is absolutely untrue. There is no such criterion imposed on marriages.