The argument that homosexuals should not have rights to marry was one that was extremely difficult to swallow for a long time UNTIL i realized what the real problem truly was - many christians (especially those in the west) are finding it difficult to divorce their faith from politics. When faith starts to drive our views on public policy, we are bound to get into trouble.

Now, is homosexuality a sin? According to my bible, it is and labeling me a bigot because of that stance isnt really helpful neither am i really concerned. We all have to agree to disagree that i have a right to form an opinion based on my faith.

Should homosexuals be denied the rights that are available to heterosexual couples? No. The same reasons we advance today where the same ones used to keep blacks in the US as second class citizens... they also formed the crux of arguments against allowing the government to recognize interracial couples.

Homosexuals have rights to marry, adopt kids and carry on their own idea of a family. As long as they are not forcing it down our throats, so be it.

Kay 17: 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.

we're talking about the moral and even psychological and biological basis of public supportance of homosexuality in our society.

Marriage is a legal platform that enables you to lawfully have children and claim them as your own, is it not true?

Public homosexuality may not faze me, but giving them rights to adopt children as well worries me the most. Have we forgotten to be human? There is a definitive parent-gender-child relationship that has huge psychological bearings on children of a family. I will never support this damaging of children psychologically because of human selfish interests.

Once we start fighting for rights to be inhuman, we give ourselves authority to disrupt the natural order of things. Humans go haywire(just as you have seen an atheist here admit he has no problem with humans having sexx with animals and in-breeding). God forbid.


We must understand that not everything we find ourselves wanting are for our own good or the good of our society. I may want to steal or be greedy, that does not mean I should do those things.

So I disagree with you and davidylan on this. Homosexuality should not be given public resonance, by the society, especially by the church. Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children. God forbid.

We see societies who have blurred the lines of marriage and gender roles and natural human inclinations and see chaos and disorder among their children.

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.

Well, that means driving cars is hardly victimless because if perpetrated infinitely, the human species as a whole will go extinct. Therefore the species is the victim here.

Ihedinobi:
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?

What does this have to do with homosexuality? How does heterosexuality help an argument for or against bestiality?

Ihedinobi:
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.

How does heterosexuality help an argument for or against incest?

Joshthefirst: 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

So a marriage that doesn't lead to consummation or one that doesn't lead to children is unnatural? I guess we now have to perform fertility tests on anyone who wishes to get married and stop any woman from getting married after menopause. You go ahead and stop them yourself if you have the power to do so.

Ihedinobi:
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?

How does allowing heterosexual marriage help this argument? After all, a brother and sister getting married is a heterosexual union. Why can't they marry since you're allowing heterosexual marriages?

Ihedinobi:
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.

It is silly because it is irrelevant. What is under consideration is homosexual and heterosexual marriage. Allowing heterosexual marriage doesn't mean you have to allow incest, bestiality and what not so the same reason for allowing heterosexual marriage is just fine for allowing homosexual marriage.

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

You should have read what he said. I'll quote it below and I hope you'll accept your own dishonesty or your failure of reading.

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 [size=14pt]heterosexuality which you clearly oppose[/size]. 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

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

You equate them when you think one has to justify them when justifying homosexuality. If you don't think they have to be justified in order to justify homosexuality, then don't bring them into the argument.

davidylan: The argument that homosexuals should not have rights to marry was one that was extremely difficult to swallow for a long time UNTIL i realized what the real problem truly was - many christians (especially those in the west) are finding it difficult to divorce their faith from politics. When faith starts to drive our views on public policy, we are bound to get into trouble.

Now, is homosexuality a sin? According to my bible, it is and labeling me a bigot because of that stance isnt really helpful neither am i really concerned. We all have to agree to disagree that i have a right to form an opinion based on my faith.

Should homosexuals be denied the rights that are available to heterosexual couples? No. The same reasons we advance today where the same ones used to keep blacks in the US as second class citizens... they also formed the crux of arguments against allowing the government to recognize interracial couples.

Homosexuals have rights to marry, adopt kids and carry on their own idea of a family. As long as they are not forcing it down our throats, so be it.

What? davidylan in support of homosexuals having the right to marry? Wonders shall never end. Or has someone hijacked this account again?

thehomer:

What? davidylan in support of homosexuals having the right to marry? Wonders shall never end. Or has someone hijacked this account again?

Christ called us to come out and be separate from the world in our words, thoughts and deeds. He didnt instruct us to go around trying to force public policy to conform with the bible. If homosexuals have demanded rights to marry, why should we stand in their way?

Ihedinobi:
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?

No double standard about it. The parallels are just ridiculous and I've addressed them as well as I can.

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

Yeah, something that less than 1% of the population have the authority to do in extreme scenarios where someone is possibly brain dead means everyone can do it. You may as well claim we can kill because executioners kill convicted criminals.

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.

Geez, it really can't be that difficult to see the difference between domesticated animals and slaves. Are you kidding me? There are trifles I can't be bothered to address seriously.

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?

Try pricking a dog on the street up the bum and find out.

Ok, guys, we've muddied things up a lot so far. It was partly my fault because I couldn't keep up with the discussion as much as I should but I couldn't help that because of other stuff that cost me tremendous mental energy.

I'm going to roll the discussion back now so that we understand what we're discussing.

Piers asked a loaded question. A loaded question is a question that assumes things that are still debatable. To such questions, direct answers are not possible. Demanding a direct answer to such a question is either an unintelligent move or else it is a dishonest one.

Piers asked if a heterosexual man should have more rights than a homosexual man. This question appears to assume that marriage is a right especially considering the context of the discussion. The answer would be "yes" from the Christian's point of view if this were true. But such an answer would be considered inhuman and bigoted and intolerant without the necessary qualifications, because, for all a homosexual's wrong sexxual orientation (from a Christian point of view), a Christian does not consider himself more human than a homosexual.

The answer would be "no" if marriage is not a right. But if you give that answer without noting that you do not consider marriage a right, you would appear to be condoning homosexual marriages and thus shooting yourself in the foot. This was why the Christian discussant answered "no" and qualified his answer with a question that exposed the underlying assumptions in the question.

My position is that Piers was showing his dishonesty or poor intellectual appreciation of the problems in his question when he called the Christian silly. How was the man silly?

The man's answer can be reconstructed thus, "granted that marriage is a right, all humans should possess it including heterosexuals, homosexuals, sibling lovers - homosexual and heterosexual, and every other human being regardless their sexual orientation."

That answer is not directly an argument against homosexuality as some here have treated it as being. It is simply an exposure of the problems in Piers's question. Piers's question raises a bunch of others, namely

1. Is marriage a right? If it is, how is it one?

2. Where do we draw the line for this right? How do we determine who has it and who doesn't?

Those are the most immediate. I suggest that we restart the discussion from answering them. Again, I reiterate that the man's question was not a straw man. A straw man is a false construction of another person's argument in order to attack it instead of the person's actual argument. The Christian discussant did not misconstrue Piers's argument, he attempted to show that the question that he was asked was a loaded one. His question was not a red herring either. A red herring is a deliberate effort to derail attention from the particular issue being discussed. The discussant's answer was focused on the issue: gay rights. It attempted to show that there was a question yet about what they are.

Ihedinobi: Ok, guys, we've muddied things up a lot so far. It was partly my fault because I couldn't keep up with the discussion as much as I should but I couldn't help that because of other stuff that cost me tremendous mental energy.

I'm going to roll the discussion back now so that we understand what we're discussing.

Piers asked a loaded question. A loaded question is a question that assumes things that are still debatable. To such questions, direct answers are not possible. Demanding a direct answer to such a question is either an unintelligent move or else it is a dishonest one.

Piers asked if a heterosexual man should have more rights than a homosexual man. This question appears to assume that marriage is a right especially considering the context of the discussion. The answer would be "yes" from the Christian's point of view if this were true. But such an answer would be considered inhuman and bigoted and intolerant without the necessary qualifications, because, for all a homosexual's wrong sexxual orientation (from a Christian point of view), a Christian does not consider himself more human than a homosexual.

The answer would be "no" if marriage is not a right. But if you give that answer without noting that you do not consider marriage a right, you would appear to be condoning homosexual marriages and thus shooting yourself in the foot. This was why the Christian discussant answered "no" and qualified his answer with a question that exposed the underlying assumptions in the question.

My position is that Piers was showing his dishonesty or poor intellectual appreciation of the problems in his question when he called the Christian silly. How was the man silly?

The man's answer can be reconstructed thus, "granted that marriage is a right, all humans should possess it including heterosexuals, homosexuals, sibling lovers - homosexual and heterosexual, and every other human being regardless their sexual orientation."

That answer is not directly an argument against homosexuality as some here have treated it as being. It is simply an exposure of the problems in Piers's question. Piers's question raises a bunch of others, namely

1. Is marriage a right? If it is, how is it one?

2. Where do we draw the line for this right? How do we determine who has it and who doesn't?

Those are the most immediate. I suggest that we restart the discussion from answering them. Again, I reiterate that the man's question was not a straw man. A straw man is a false construction of another person's argument in order to attack it instead of the person's actual argument. The Christian discussant did not misconstrue Piers's argument, he attempted to show that the question that he was asked was a loaded one. His question was not a red herring either. A red herring is a deliberate effort to derail attention from the particular issue being discussed. The discussant's answer was focused on the issue: gay rights. It attempted to show that there was a question yet about what they are.

Your attempt at a clarification does nothing to help because you're misusing the term "loaded question". It isn't a loaded question to ask if heterosexuals should have more rights than homosexuals because that would be the implication of only allowing heterosexuals to express their sexual preference by marriage.

If you think it is a loaded question, then what is the assumption that you think is debatable? i.e you need to state the assumption, and explain why that assumption isn't acceptable.

thehomer:

Your attempt at a clarification does nothing to help because you're misusing the term "loaded question". It isn't a loaded question to ask if heterosexuals should have more rights than homosexuals because that would be the implication of only allowing heterosexuals to express their sexual preference by marriage.

If you think it is a loaded question, then what is the assumption that you think is debatable? i.e you need to state the assumption, and explain why that assumption isn't acceptable.

I already stated the assumption, thehomer. You did read the post completely, right? Here it is again:

Ihedinobi: This question appears to assume that marriage is a right especially considering the context of the discussion.

I have extracted two questions or three from Piers's question already. Do you suppose that those questions have obvious answers? What are the obvious answers?

Davidlyan hello, hope you are well. I was so sure that you were away "wifing" and would return with testimony. How far?

@All, I'm going to pivot my input off this point made by DL;

davidylan: If homosexuals have demanded rights to marry, why should we stand in their way?

Firstly we should ask what is marriage? And secondly what constitutes a right, or at least this particular one?

Simply put, marriage is and has always been the commitment between a man and a woman. It was never ever predicated on one's "sexual orientation" - whatever that is claimed to be, or however you "self-identify".

"Homosexuals are not denied the same right as any other person - the right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Anthropologically, there would be no need for marriage if children - the natural outcome - were not in view. To extend "marriage" as we know it to homosexuals, we have to change what marriage is. It becomes merely the validation of desire between adults (which as has been pointed out is hypocrisy by Western nations as Polygamy is consensual, but they are not clamouring for that - yet?). We don't need to enshrine that in law or institutionalise it. If that was all marriage represented, it simply wouldn't have come into existence.

It also denies children the right to be raised by their biological parents, which is codified by the UN. Rights jam rights?

davidylan: The argument that homosexuals should not have rights to marry was one that was extremely difficult to swallow for a long time UNTIL i realized what the real problem truly was - many christians (especially those in the west) are finding it difficult to divorce their faith from politics. When faith starts to drive our views on public policy, we are bound to get into trouble.

Homosexuals have rights to marry, adopt kids and carry on their own idea of a family. As long as they are not forcing it down our throats, so be it.

Firstly here, true faith colours and motivates everything one does, to divorce one's faith from ones politics, is to divorce oneself from said faith. Please take stock here. And the Christian worldview has as much right to inform public policy as any other.

Your last point is contradictory. If homosexuals have the right to marriage and kids, surely they have the right to ram it down throats exactly the same way heterosexuals do. This testifies to conflict in your position?

Now to close. The terms "gay", "homosexual", "heterosexual" are pretty much fallacious as currently used. Gay as we all know is an usurped word. Homosexual and heterosexual are neologisms, coined barely a century (or maybe 2 ago).

There are not two distinct species of human being i.e. homosexual and heterosexual. Functionally all humans - with the exception of a few outlying and tragic instances, are functionally the same, the only distinction being male or female. The real distinction is those who practice normal unitive/procreative sex, as obvious and evidenced by function and outcome and those who practice a deviant form which possesses neither of those qualities or outcome. It is rightly called sodomy.

Further it has been shown that this "practice", is not biologically pre-determined (any more than any other sexual deviancy). Regardless of that fact, indulging in sodomy is a choice.

Marriage has a definite purpose. Varying it to validate deviant sexual practice is deleterious, through whatever perspective one views it. In regards to my earlier poser of rights jam rights, it's not. It's really adult desires trumping childrens right.

No rights are being denied anyone, what is being sought is endorsement of deviant behaviour - by legally codifying and enforcing a gutted form of marriage - and ultimately silencing of any dissenting voices.

Dressing this up in the language of rights equality, tolerance, etc. is bull. There is no plausible argument for sodomy, sodomitic, marriage or sodomitic adoption. Anthropologically it is deviant and deleterious. From a Christian point of view it's simply immoral

Please take heed, while you are busy divorcing your faith and politics (both of which you are in error), they will try and forcibly separate you from your faith.

Merry x-mas


TV

TV01: Davidlyan hello, hope you are well. I was so sure that you were away "wifing" and would return with testimony. How far?

@All, I'm going to pivot my input off this point made by DL;



Firstly we should ask what is marriage? And secondly what constitutes a right, or at least this particular one?

Simply put, marriage is and has always been the commitment between a man and a woman. It was never ever predicated on one's "sexual orientation" - whatever that is claimed to be, or however you "self-identify".

This point falls flat when you begin to consider other things which have had their definitions modified over time. For instance, parenthood. Before adoptions became a thing, parenthood was generally only attributable to people with their own biological children. Or adulthood which has had ages modified to fit whatever society feels is the requirement for adulthood at the time.
Definitions change as humans change.

TV01: "Homosexuals are not denied the same right as any other person - the right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Anthropologically, there would be no need for marriage if children - the natural outcome - were not in view. To extend "marriage" as we know it to homosexuals, we have to change what marriage is. It becomes merely the validation of desire between adults (which as has been pointed out is hypocrisy by Western nations as Polygamy is consensual, but they are not clamouring for that - yet?). We don't need to enshrine that in law or institutionalise it. If that was all marriage represented, it simply wouldn't have come into existence.

It also denies children the right to be raised by their biological parents, which is codified by the UN. Rights jam rights?

Okay. So if you take away childbirth and having children from a married couple, what are you left with? Two people who just want to spend the rest of their lives together, recognized by the law as being in a union (and where applicable, religion). You also realise there are heterosexual marriages where the couple do not plan on having any kiss. Forget that long story of kids and their right to be raised by their biological parents because you're making it sound like homosexuals raid the homes of heterosexual couples for their kids. What about the kids at orphanages and motherless babies' homes? One set do not have parents. The others are not wanted by said biological parents. Most straight couples are too caught up trying to have their own kids to try adopting these children you are defending so assiduously. May I ask how many orphans/parent-less kids you have given a home? But when a gay couple comes to adopt them and give them one, you deny them hope of something as close to normal family life as they could possibly ever get?

TV01: Firstly here, true faith colours and motivates everything one does, to divorce one's faith from ones politics, is to divorce oneself from said faith. Please take stock here. And the Christian worldview has as much right to inform public policy as any other.

Your last point is contradictory. If homosexuals have the right to marriage and kids, surely they have the right to ram it down throats exactly the same way heterosexuals do. This testifies to conflict in your position?

Really? So if a muslim president is elected next in Nigeria and he says it is in our National interests to pray to Allah by twelve pm every day, to be enforced by law enforcement, would you support him on the grounds that faith informs everything everyone does and can't be divorced from one's politics?

That last paragraph is actually you getting it wrong. Homosexuals cannot ask heterosexuals to stop taking a straight lifestyle down their throats then turn around to ram their own lifestyle down straight people's throats. You also realize they are a really small minority compared to the total population and will always be. Like physically deformed people are a minority against fully fit people.

TV01: Now to close. The terms "gay", "homosexual", "heterosexual" are pretty much fallacious as currently used. Gay as we all know is an usurped word. Homosexual and heterosexual are neologisms, coined barely a century (or maybe 2 ago).

You don't want to go into the number of everyday defining words that were coined less than a century ago. Much of ancient speak involved describing things as against giving them actual names. Same could apply to homosexuality which has been proven not to be a modern invention. Besides, if we are to go by the Bible, homosexuality was a huge thing in Sodom. So they must have had a name for it then. Sodomy, of cours, is also a modern word.

TV01: There are not two distinct species of human being i.e. homosexual and heterosexual. Functionally all humans - with the exception of a few outlying and tragic instances, are functionally the same, the only distinction being male or female. The real distinction is those who practice normal unitive/procreative sex, as obvious and evidenced by function and outcome and those who practice a deviant form which possesses neither of those qualities or outcome. It is rightly called sodomy.

Further it has been shown that this "practice", is not biologically pre-determined (any more than any other sexual deviancy). Regardless of that fact, indulging in sodomy is a choice.

Functionally, all humans are the same. Practically, we are as diverse as the sands on the sea shore. All humans have two hands, right? Doesn't mean all humans use both hands for carpentry. We all see through our two eyes but we do not perceive the same things. Human beings were not made in black and white as even our races show. There are grey areas we do not understand and we shouldn't just disparage because they are not like us and we don't understand what they do as far as they are not infringing on our basic rights.

Nobody has shown that sexuality is by choice or not. I don't think anybody woke up one morning and chose to be straight so saying the same of a gay person would be unfair. It is still a matter for debate (except you are reading Chibuihem Amahala's project report which was laughed at by even homophobes)

TV01: Marriage has a definite purpose. Varying it to validate deviant sexual practice is deleterious, through whatever perspective one views it. In regards to my earlier poser of rights jam rights, it's not. It's really adult desires trumping childrens right.

No rights are being denied anyone, what is being sought is endorsement of deviant behaviour - by legally codifying and enforcing a gutted form of marriage - and ultimately silencing of any dissenting voices.

Please take heed, while you are busy divorcing your faith and politics, they will try and forcibly separate you from your faith.

Merry x-mas


TV

So what is marriage's definite function and what in this function cannot apply to homosexual couples? If you bring up child bearing, then a heterosexual union where the couple have no biological children and don't want to adopt is invalid, isn't it?

I would like to ask you, do you think you have more rights than a gay person?

Here's my personal take on this issue. I don't think the issue of sexuality should really be a legal issue. It should be religious and should be left for religion to speak against. What two people do in the privacy of their bedrooms and who they choose to fall in love with should not be government's problem. The primary function of the law is the protection of rights and that gives the following criteria for acceptable sex: 1) that there is mutual consent and neither party was coerced into giving consent. 2) that both parties are sound enough by age and mental capacity to reason properly and give reasoned consent. 3) That said act does not infringe on another person's fundamental human rights and is in no way a threat to national security (the sex has to be really something to threaten national security!)

Funny thing is that I don't remember when any gay person in Nigeria ever wanted to get married. Even if president Jonathan tomorrow signs a bill permitting gay couples in Nigeria to marry, I don't think we will see any gay weddings. What we have failed to realise from history is that the moment you start trying to put certain people down who weren't even clamoring for anything in the first place, that's when they get exactly what they want and more. Ask white supremacists and male chauvinists in the US about black people and women suffrage.

itsrandeeboi: Here's my personal take on this issue. I don't think the issue of sexuality should really be a legal issue. It should be religious and should be left for religion to speak against. What two people do in the privacy of their bedrooms and who they choose to fall in love with should not be government's problem. The primary function of the law is the protection of rights and that gives the following criteria for acceptable sex: 1) that there is mutual consent and neither party was coerced into giving consent. 2) that both parties are sound enough by age and mental capacity to reason properly and give reasoned consent. 3) That said act does not infringe on another person's fundamental human rights and is in no way a threat to national security (the sex has to be really something to threaten national security!)

Funny thing is that I don't remember when any gay person in Nigeria ever wanted to get married. Even if president Jonathan tomorrow signs a bill permitting gay couples in Nigeria to marry, I don't think we will see any gay weddings. What we have failed to realise from history is that the moment you start trying to put certain people down who weren't even clamoring for anything in the first place, that's when they get exactly what they want and more. Ask white supremacists and male chauvinists in the US about black people and women suffrage.

What is this guy saying? That gay nigerians do not want to get married? Have you asked one of them before?


Another rubbish is the claim that sexuality should b basesd on religion! Peple existed and had s.ex before religion. It is a very wrong idea to use religion to dictate sexuality- which religion and which interpretation or sect of religion?

Ihedinobi:
I already stated the assumption, thehomer. You did read the post completely, right? Here it is again:



I have extracted two questions or three from Piers's question already. Do you suppose that those questions have obvious answers? What are the obvious answers?

I'd say it is obvious that marriage is a right that adults have. If you disagree, please explain why you disagree.

I don't think the issue here is about denying anybody their rights. Rather it is a question of re-defining marriage. In this case, secular matters are subject to redefinitions at all times, so if marriage is redefined to mean the legal union of two or more adults regardless of sexuality, then that would be the marriage that the law recognizes. I stress that this is a legal marriage, not a christian(I speak as a christian) marriage, so let it not be that somebody goes to court to try and force the honoring/celebration of homosexual marriages in churches or any activity pertaining to church doctrine. A church of course being the voluntary association of believers of the christian doctrine in this case.

Logicboy03:



What is this guy saying? That gay nigerians do not want to get married? Have you asked one of them before?


Another rubbish is the claim that sexuality should b basesd on religion! Peple existed and had s.ex before religion. It is a very wrong idea to use religion to dictate sexuality- which religion and which interpretation or sect of religion?

Dude you clearly did not get me at all. Get out of condemn mode.

How many gay Nigerians do you know that want to get married, ehn? Has gay people wanting to marry ever been an issue in Nigeria? Did our legislature pass those laws because they were some gay peeps who were protesting being denied their right to get married. In fact, if I can get anything from Nigerian gays, it's that they probably want to just be left alone.

And I never said religion should dictate sexuality; go and read again, Mr Logicboy! I said it shouldn't be the place of law to decide wether a certain sexuality is right or not seeing as the matter is really a religious (not even moral) issue. As far as there was reasoned consent from both parties, both parties are sound of mind and of age to give said reasoned consent and there was no breach off anybody's fundamental human rights and no threat to national security, the tenets for legal sex have been cleared. It is up to each religion to preach against it as their beliefs follow but not force such opinions down public throats.

okeyxyz: I don't think the issue here is about denying anybody their rights. Rather it is a question of re-defining marriage. In this case, secular matters are subject to redefinitions at all times, so if marriage is redefined to mean the legal union of two or more adults regardless of sexuality, then that would be the marriage that the law recognizes. I stress that this is a legal marriage, not a christian(I speak as a christian) marriage, so let it not be that somebody goes to court to try and force the honoring/celebration of homosexual marriages in churches or any activity pertaining to church doctrine. A church of course being the voluntary association of believers of the christian doctrine in this case.

Bless you, you totally understand this. Where I would have a problem is if churches are being forced to wed people they are clearly against wedding. Churches have their own beliefs as regards the issue. Since all the gay people want to get married want is a legal union, then I think courts can very well provide that.

itsrandeeboi:

Dude you clearly did not get me at all. Get out of condemn mode.

How many gay Nigerians do you know that want to get married, ehn? Has gay people wanting to marry ever been an issue in Nigeria? Did our legislature pass those laws because they were some gay peeps who were protesting being denied their right to get married. In fact, if I can get anything from Nigerian gays, it's that they probably want to just be left alone.

And I never said religion should dictate sexuality; go and read again, Mr Logicboy! I said it shouldn't be the place of law to decide wether a certain sexuality is right or not seeing as the matter is really a religious (not even moral) issue. As far as there was reasoned consent from both parties, both parties are sound of mind and of age to give said reasoned consent and there was no breach off anybody's fundamental human rights and no threat to national security, the tenets for legal sex have been cleared. It is up to each religion to preach against it as their beliefs follow but not force such opinions down public throats.

Guy, you are pointless.

1) You made a silly claim and now, you are trying to escape. Who told you that nigerian gays are not interested in getting married? Are they somehow different fro the other gays in the world? Please, stop remixing and accept your mistake

2) No one is forcing churches to wed gays. The last time I checked, there are churches and secular organisations that even do it gleefully

Logicboy03:



Guy, you are pointless.

1) You made a silly claim and now, you are trying to escape. Who told you that nigerian gays are not interested in getting married? Are they somehow different fro the other gays in the world? Please, stop remixing and accept your mistake

Oh, really? Care to introduce me to one gay Nigerian couple that want to get married? Just one?

Logicboy03: 2) No one is forcing churches to wed gays. The last time I checked, there are churches and secular organisations that even do it gleefully

You're plainly echoing my point and you called me pointless. Besides, you're narrowing things down to marriage when the thread title said gay rights, not gay marriage.

1. Statements that an animal cannot "consent" to sex with a human are often shortsighted. Sometimes there is an attempt (perhaps subconsciously) to cover up for the shortsightedness by talk of "reasoned consent" or "informed consent". But of course when a dog "consents" to sex with another dog --- is that "reasoned consent" or is that "informed consent"? But here is a thing, the same "consent" to sex that a dog gives to another dog, the same dog can indeed give to a human! I have myself seen a female dog make a gesture of invitation or submission to sex towards a male human.

Bottomline: there has to be a basis beyond "consent" for opposing "bestiality"; oh, and what about zoophilia even?


2. Marriage by definition has historically, culturally (and etc 'allies') been understood to be a union between males and females. It is true that a word can be redefined to suit new circumstances but generally there have to be justifiable reasons for the redefinition. It is amusing that some people are willing to accept impose a redefinition of "marriage" to include homosexual unions. BUT point out to them that atheism, or at least some forms of it and especially evangelical atheism, is indeed now a religion, the more myopic demur and some foam at the mouth on descent to some form of apoplexy.

3. In the case of "marriage" between homosexuals, the question needs to be asked whether even a committed union between homosexuals should be called "marriage" (i.e. marriage plainly at all) or should be known as something else. In the UK for example, there is something known as "civil partnership"; this did not gather as much opposition as that towards extending the meaning of "marriage" to include homosexual unions. Other suggestions can be made e.g. create a new category of union e.g. "gay union" or "gay marriage" so that they can be distinguished from traditional understandings of "marriage".

4. It is all well and good to speak of the "rights" of homosexuals to unions --- but should it be at the risk of taking away the rights of heterosexuals? It is all well and good to give "value" to the unions of homosexuals --- but should it be at the risk of devaluing the unions of heterosexuals. There is a legitimate argument that to extend "marriage" per se as known to homosexual unions would devalue the "marriage" of heterosexuals as understood. Well, maybe scientists will prove zoophilia at some point in the future to the extent that we can ask: why can "marriage" not include a union between a human and an animal? Come to think of it, some would tell us that man is an animal too, or that man is an ape. So what is intrinsically wrong in marriage between one animal and another? What is intrinsically wrong in marriage between an ape and a dog, say?

5. Again, even if homosexual unions or homosexual 'marriages' are legalised or even if homosexual unions are seen as "marriages", should religious institutions be compelled to perform ceremonies for such unions? Will it be taking away from the "rights" of homosexuals if religious institutions are not obliged to perform such unions? How does it affect the "rights" of religious institutions and their members if they are compelled to perform ceremonies for such unions.

6. Nowadays, some countries are moving towards a situation where po.rnography (at least certain forms of it) is blocked by default by Internet service providers; thus a user has to opt for it. Does it not make sense that even if a country legalises homosexual unions, the law rules by default that religious institutions cannot under any circumstances be required to perform ceremonies for such unions ---- unless a particular religious institution opts in i.e. opts to perform them?

Enigma: 1. Statements that an animal cannot "consent" to sex with a human are often shortsighted. Sometimes there is an attempt (perhaps subconsciously) to cover up for the shortsightedness by talk of "reasoned consent" or "informed consent". But of course when a dog "consents" to sex with another dog --- is that "reasoned consent" or is that "informed consent"? But here is a thing, the same "consent" to sex that a dog gives to another dog, the same dog can indeed give to a human! I have myself seen a female dog make a gesture of invitation or submission to sex towards a male human.

Bottomline: there has to be a basis beyond "consent" for opposing "bestiality"; oh, and what about zoophilia even?

This point is irrelevant. What is under discussion is interactions between humans not interactions between other animals. Any basis for opposing bestiality applies whether or not homosexuals can get married.

Enigma:
2. Marriage by definition has historically, culturally (and etc 'allies') been understood to be a union between males and females. It is true that a word can be redefined to suit new circumstances but generally there have to be justifiable reasons for the redefinition. It is amusing that some people are willing to accept impose a redefinition of "marriage" to include homosexual unions. BUT point out to them that atheism, or at least some forms of it and especially evangelical atheism, is indeed now a religion, the more myopic demur and some foam at the mouth on descent to some form of apoplexy.

One would think that the fact that people are being granted rights that others have always had is a satisfactory justification. Declaring atheism to be a religion isn't a redefinition of anything so that angle is also irrelevant. If you wish to redefine religion to include atheism, then you also think that communism and the civil rights movements were religions too. If you're happy with that consequence, then go ahead with your redefinition.

Enigma:
3. In the case of "marriage" between homosexuals, the question needs to be asked whether even a committed union between homosexuals should be called "marriage" (i.e. marriage plainly at all) or should be known as something else. In the UK for example, there is something known as "civil partnership"; this did not gather as much opposition as that towards extending the meaning of "marriage" to include homosexual unions. Other suggestions can be made e.g. create a new category of union e.g. "gay union" or "gay marriage" so that they can be distinguished from traditional understandings of "marriage".

Why should a new category be created? Why not create a category called "mixed-marriage" or "mixed-union" to cover a situation where people of different races are getting married, "black-marriage" for blacks, "asian-marriage" for asians and plain "marriage" for caucasians getting married.

Enigma:
4. It is all well and good to speak of the "rights" of homosexuals to unions --- but should it be at the risk of taking away the rights of heterosexuals? It is all well and good to give "value" to the unions of homosexuals --- but should it be at the risk of devaluing the unions of heterosexuals. There is a legitimate argument that to extend "marriage" per se as known to homosexual unions would devalue the "marriage" of heterosexuals as understood. Well, maybe scientists will prove zoophilia at some point in the future to the extent that we can ask: why can "marriage" not include a union between a human and an animal? Come to think of it, some would tell us that man is an animal too, or that man is an ape. So what is intrinsically wrong in marriage between one animal and another? What is intrinsically wrong in marriage between an ape and a dog, say?

How does extending human rights to other humans diminish your rights? How does granting the right to vote to women diminish the right of men to vote? This is just a generally bad argument. Have you considered that marriage can't include a union between a human and an animal because animals aren't humans. Or do you think homosexuals are animals? It is amazing that people like you don't see the insult in such a comparison but would quickly make a lot of noise if someone wondered why extending the right to vote to black people in a predominantly white society shouldn't include extending the right to vote to pets.

Enigma:
5. Again, even if homosexual unions or homosexual 'marriages' are legalised or even if homosexual unions are seen as "marriages", should religious institutions be compelled to perform ceremonies for such unions? Will it be taking away from the "rights" of homosexuals if religious institutions are not obliged to perform such unions? How does it affect the "rights" of religious institutions and their members if they are compelled to perform ceremonies for such unions.

If the religious institution is an arm of the state, then it should be compelled to perform such ceremonies if the participants want it to be done in that religious institution. If there's a separation between the religion and the government, then they're free not to perform these ceremonies.

Enigma:
6. Nowadays, some countries are moving towards a situation where po.rnography (at least certain forms of it) is blocked by default by Internet service providers; thus a user has to opt for it. Does it not make sense that even if a country legalises homosexual unions, the law rules by default that religious institutions cannot under any circumstances be required to perform ceremonies for such unions ---- unless a particular religious institution opts in i.e. opts to perform them?

It is the case that religious institutions aren't compelled by the state to perform these ceremonies. Those that wish to perform them do choose to perform them.

Ihe has deactivated his account? , what's happening

^ Me sef dey surprise o. I dey efen think say na him be Nobody until I came to understand if one deactivates his\her account, it changes to "Nobody". I for say what in the world is going on here!

I wonder why he suddenly decided to deactivate his account. Maybe he's become uncomfortable.

thehomer: I wonder why he suddenly decided to deactivate his account. Maybe he's become uncomfortable.

Lolz, what would make him uncomfortable?

itsrandeeboi:

Lolz, what would make him uncomfortable?

Who knows, maybe the new mod banned him and he had to leave angrily.

Holá everyone, hope merry x-masses were had by all.

Ihedinobi, how far? Hope all's well.

itsrandeeboi: I would like to ask you, do you think you have more rights than a gay person?

Let me start from the end. No, I don't think that I have or should have more rights than a "gay person", Neither do I think that just because a person practices a certain type of intimate behaviour, he/she should be ascribed a set of rights over and above my rights or generic human rights.

And I laugh at the hypocrisy that says rights should be ascribed to "gays" on the basis of their proclivities, but not to others on the basis of theirs; to wit polygamists, zoophiliacs, paedophiles etc.

There are in truth only human rights, applicable to all. I would make exceptions for the vulnerable, i.e. children, the disabled, but other than that no "special or protected interests". The whole notion of gay rights is simply a contrivance to impose the perversion.

And the point is consistently overlooked, that whatever the legalities or definition, there are some who will always count sodomy as as abominable, deviant, degrading, immoral or simply disordered. You cannot re-define or legislate away issues of morality, which is what is being attempted here.

itsrandeeboi:
This point falls flat when you begin to consider other things which have had their definitions modified over time. For instance, parenthood. Before adoptions became a thing, parenthood was generally only attributable to people with their own biological children. Or adulthood which has had ages modified to fit whatever society feels is the requirement for adulthood at the time.
Definitions change as humans change.

It does not fall at all, let alone flat. Neither has your rebuttal actually said anything. If something is re-defined in such a way that it loses it's essence, it's not being simply re-defined, it's being destroyed. A re-definition should not vary anything that is fundamental to what a thing is in essence, otherwise it ceases to be, or is rendered useless.

So far example "adulthood", being mentally and physically able to engage as an adult is it's essence, being impossible before puberty. If we move the adulthood bar to a pre-pubertal age, we render the term useless.

Re-defining marriage to include a pair that are 1. not opposite sex, 2. cannot procreate in principle or in practice means it is no longer marriage as we have historically and anthropologically understood it. It becomes something else. And for everyone. To make it work for "gays", it ceases to work for anyone. Rights? No, it's about redefining the immoral as moral.

The concepts of adultery and consummation have also to be stripped out of marriage' essence, as both are simply nonsensical in a same-sex pairing.

And from a canonical Christian perspective, whether you redefine (marriage), or recreate (civil unions), sin remains sin.

itsrandeeboi: Okay. So if you take away childbirth and having children from a married couple, what are you left with? Two people who just want to spend the rest of their lives together, recognized by the law as being in a union (and where applicable, religion). You also realise there are heterosexual marriages where the couple do not plan on having any kiss. Forget that long story of kids and their right to be raised by their biological parents because you're making it sound like homosexuals raid the homes of heterosexual couples for their kids. What about the kids at orphanages and motherless babies' homes? One set do not have parents. The others are not wanted by said biological parents. Most straight couples are too caught up trying to have their own kids to try adopting these children you are defending so assiduously. May I ask how many orphans/parent-less kids you have given a home? But when a gay couple comes to adopt them and give them one, you deny them hope of something as close to normal family life as they could possibly ever get?

1. An arrangement where two people who just "want to spend the rest of their lives together", needs no legal codification or societal endorsement. If that's all it was, we would not have evolved anything even like marriage. We - being society - take an interest in this type of arrangement solely due to the procreative possibility. That's the whole point.
2. Even if there are no offspring - by design or default - the principle holds, an opposite sex pairing is the basis for procreation and the best setting for nurturing children.
3. Orphaned or abandoned/unwanted kids would be best served by placing them with a male/female pairing in every which way. We should encourage and if expedient incentivise this. Neither bad opposite couples or demoniosing them, makes a case for same-sex ones.
4. You may ask whatever you please, it changes the basis of this discussion not a wit. Two fathers or two mothers in lieu of an opposite sex parent in not "normal".

itsrandeeboi: Really? So if a muslim president is elected next in Nigeria and he says it is in our National interests to pray to Allah by twelve pm every day, to be enforced by law enforcement, would you support him on the grounds that faith informs everything everyone does and can't be divorced from one's politics?

That last paragraph is actually you getting it wrong. Homosexuals cannot ask heterosexuals to stop taking a straight lifestyle down their throats then turn around to ram their own lifestyle down straight people's throats. You also realize they are a really small minority compared to the total population and will always be. Like physically deformed people are a minority against fully fit people.?

I said that the voice of the religious is every bit as valid as any other in a democracy. I did not prescribe a theocratic state. Scarecrow !

If "homosexuality" is right and good and proper, it follows that it has every right to be celebrated as any other legitimate lifestyle/sexuall expression.

In one breath you claim rights for sodomites, in another you deny them for legitimate minorities in a democratic setting?

itsrandeeboi: You don't want to go into the number of everyday defining words that were coined less than a century ago. Much of ancient speak involved describing things as against giving them actual names. Same could apply to homosexuality which has been proven not to be a modern invention. Besides, if we are to go by the Bible, homosexuality was a huge thing in Sodom. So they must have had a name for it then. Sodomy, of cours, is also a modern word.

However old or new a descriptive word is, is not the point. If a language construct changes the essence of a thing, we need to ask why. Coining the word "homosexual" and as a contradistinction to heterosexual, suggests there are two types of human being? It's a contrivance and a lie. We only have male/female. To accept otherwise is to accept that a peadophile or polygamist is a "different type" also, as opposed to the same with different desires or inclinations. To normalise the deviancy called sodomy, they have to de-construct and reconstruct language.

itsrandeeboi: Functionally, all humans are the same. Practically, we are as diverse as the sands on the sea shore. All humans have two hands, right? Doesn't mean all humans use both hands for carpentry. We all see through our two eyes but we do not perceive the same things. Human beings were not made in black and white as even our races show. There are grey areas we do not understand and we shouldn't just disparage because they are not like us and we don't understand what they do as far as they are not infringing on our basic rights.

Nobody has shown that sexuality is by choice or not. I don't think anybody woke up one morning and chose to be straight so saying the same of a gay person would be unfair. It is still a matter for debate (except you are reading Chibuihem Amahala's project report which was laughed at by even homophobes)

Any human that engages in carpentry will use their hands though, not so? Unless of course they don't have any. All humans (bar outliers) can procreate and all do so in only one way. NO rights are being infringed on keeping marriage as it is. Contrary to what some incredulously believe, marriage was not instituted to infringe anyones rights and not based on what one likes to do with their members, but the real and required outcome of procreative coupling.

Sexual design and functionality are clear. Desire is an amalgam of a number of factors, but where its manifestation is at odds with design and functionality, then there is obviously something amiss.

itsrandeeboi: So what is marriage's definite function and what in this function cannot apply to homosexual couples? If you bring up child bearing, then a heterosexual union where the couple have no biological children and don't want to adopt is invalid, isn't it?

I believe I have talked this point to exhaustion. Procreation in principle even if not in practice gives us the essence of marriage and anchors it's societal utility. Even if not in practice, it remains the ideal setting and kids can be adopted. Even if not in practice, it re-enforces the notion. It works perfectly and at minimal cost to and with minimal intervention by society.

Sodomy is all about sex. There are lots of same couple relationships - two brothers or sisters, very good/close friends etc. - who could claim exactly the same arrangement as homosexuals - just without the physical intimacy. We do not say they should be married. Any arrangement they wish to make can be contracted privately. It requires no state intervention as it has little if any societal benefit.


TV

Enigma: 1. Statements that an animal cannot "consent" to sex with a human are often shortsighted. Sometimes there is an attempt (perhaps subconsciously) to cover up for the shortsightedness by talk of "reasoned consent" or "informed consent". But of course when a dog "consents" to sex with another dog --- is that "reasoned consent" or is that "informed consent"? But here is a thing, the same "consent" to sex that a dog gives to another dog, the same dog can indeed give to a human! I have myself seen a female dog make a gesture of invitation or submission to sex towards a male human.

Bottomline: there has to be a basis beyond "consent" for opposing "bestiality"; oh, and what about zoophilia even?

This is still a strawman - the real bottom line is that the permissibility or otherwise of sex.ual relations with animals involves two different species - it is not a parallel to homosexuality in any way.

2. Marriage by definition has historically, culturally (and etc 'allies') been understood to be a union between males and females. It is true that a word can be redefined to suit new circumstances but generally there have to be justifiable reasons for the redefinition.

Justifiable to who and what basis? I guess that's the key question.

3. In the case of "marriage" between homosexuals, the question needs to be asked whether even a committed union between homosexuals should be called "marriage" (i.e. marriage plainly at all) or should be known as something else. In the UK for example, there is something known as "civil partnership"; this did not gather as much opposition as that towards extending the meaning of "marriage" to include homosexual unions. Other suggestions can be made e.g. create a new category of union e.g. "gay union" or "gay marriage" so that they can be distinguished from traditional understandings of "marriage".

The question is whether or not the term marriage should be reserved just for males and females, and whether there is any justifiable basis for this, beyond 'traditional understandings'.

4. It is all well and good to speak of the "rights" of homosexuals to unions --- but should it be at the risk of taking away the rights of heterosexuals? It is all well and good to give "value" to the unions of homosexuals --- but should it be at the risk of devaluing the unions of heterosexuals. There is a legitimate argument that to extend "marriage" per se as known to homosexual unions would devalue the "marriage" of heterosexuals as understood.

This is probably the same argument the whites made about giving blacks votes -what about the rights of the whites? Won't giving all these black folk the vote devalue the worth of an individual white vote? It is a baseless argument.

If what some gay people do devalues your union, then your union never had much value to start with.

Well, maybe scientists will prove zoophilia at some point in the future to the extent that we can ask: why can "marriage" not include a union between a human and an animal? Come to think of it, some would tell us that man is an animal too, or that man is an ape. So what is intrinsically wrong in marriage between one animal and another? What is intrinsically wrong in marriage between an ape and a dog, say?

When you begin to compare same sex relations to relations between different animal species, you lose the argument. As I said earlier, the whites in America who opposed giving the votes to blacks made similar arguments - give it to the blacks and who next? The apes? The latter view has inherent in it, a view that homosexuals are less/not as worthy as other humans. We'll tolerate them, but they better not overstep their place, which we - the heterosexual majority - have decided. That may not be your express intention, but that's what your position ultimately conveys.