TV01: 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 grin!

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?

You do realize that we blacks weren't always this accepted on the global stage as equals, right? Even now, when internationally important issues are being discussed, black nations still take the back seat and are seldom heard. Does that mean we are not good and proper? Think of women in government. Do you you think a woman should be president of this country? How come if you propose this idea to most Nigerian men, they would yell "What?!! A woman?!! No way!!" ? Shouldn't women be as celebrated in the fields of government and politics as men? Aren't they "right, good and proper"?

TV01: 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.

You suggest in this post that there is only one type of human being. Then followed it up by saying we have male and female. Be consistent, brah. Language changes always to better define what it couldn't clearly define before. I don't have any issues with polygamy so I don't know why you keep throwing in polygamy. I have clearly outlined while homosexuality and peadophilia/beastiality/necrophilia and the rest are not the same as have several others on this thread and I will not go back into that.

TV01: 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.

intimate 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.

I don't know where you got that anybody thinks marriage was constituted to infringe on anyone's rights. If it was then gay people should not be clamouring to be included. You keep bringing up procreative coupling like it is the only reason people get married. I have said before that not all people get married to have children. Think of a menopausal 60 year old woman getting married to a 72 year old man. Yes, it happens. Clearly, their chances at having children is tending towards zero so their reason for getting married is more love/desire to stay together for the rest of their lives than have kids. Would you say their union is null, since children are not involved?

TV01: 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.

Procreation is not the sole purpose of marriage - you keep carrying it around like a banner when it clearly no longer holds true. In fact, marriage today just for the purpose of having kids is a marriage of convenience - to serve that specific purpose and nothing more. People can procreate without getting married so stop making it like a woman's egg can only be fertilized when she is brandishing a marriage certificate.

Minimal cost to and minimal intervention by society? How much does homosexuality cost society? In modern society, a man and a woman don't necessarily make an ideal setting - alla the drunk man and drug addicted woman I asked you to imagine above. Sound minds make an ideal setting, whether male or female. Afterall, there are kids that grew up in foster care and homes and still turn out fine in spite of not having a defined mother and father.

Sodomy is all about sex - true. But homosexuality and sodomy are two different things; you're just interchanging them to suit your purposes so you can score points. Sodomy is about sex. So is missionary style and all the other styles straight couples engage in. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are about relationships, so you should get that straight. [/quote]

As has been pointed out here, incest is a grey area. If i remember my bible correctly, Lot's daughters had children by him. I don't remember anywhere the bible said God punished them for that. That is clearly incest. A lot of cultures have supported incestuous relationships. So I can't comment on incest. If I come across an incestuous couple, I would only voice personal reservations about their choice; not try to get the government to lock them up as far as they are not infringing anybody's fundamental rights.

Ha - talk about societal benefits! Think armed robbers, rapists, serial killers, assassins - name them. They came from the union of a man and woman, didn't they? What kind of benefits have they accrued to humanity? So don't make it look like straight relationships only produce positive benefits.

Besides, i keep asking the question, to help those poor orphan kids out there have proper homes, how many have you adopted?

Redlyn: Forget about this guy. his whole argument is marriage is there solely for procreation. So if you can't procreate there is no real reason for you to marry. He cannot understand why any non procreating couple could possibly want to marry. since It's only about procreating that makes infertile unions worthless and pointless.

Ah, my bad, didn't read page four, else I wouldn't have bothered commenting.

Redlyn: Forget about this guy. his whole argument is marriage is there solely for procreation. So if you can't procreate there is no real reason for you to marry. He cannot understand why any non procreating couple could possibly want to marry. since It's only about procreating that makes infertile unions worthless and pointless.

Au contraire mon frere.

I have consistently pivoted my response to you on the "benefit to society" claim.

So what - for the benefit of society - distinguishes a committed homosexual couple from an uncommitted homosexual couple or even two men who don't even know each other from Adam?

Why should we discriminate - in terms of rewarding them - in favour of the committed couple?


TV

thehomer: What is self evident is your poor reasoning ability. How would it be freedom to say that e.g everyone is free to marry only members of their own tribe or their own race when they would rather to marry someone of another tribe or another race? Isn't it arbitrary to declare that race or tribe should be a valid restriction in a marriage? The fatuousness of your response is truly astounding.

Marriage is axiomatically male/female. That is the basic and immutable essence of it. All your piffle about race, tribe is distractionary and typifies your lack or real argument.

thehomer: Your second syllogism is so terribly malformed that it demonstrates your ignorant ramblings. You should learn how to form non-fallacious syllogisms. What you've written out can be codified as:

A. P has Q
B. R has Q
C. Therefore R is P.

It simply makes no sense.

It was made to reflect your warped reasoning, you dummy !

Because humans can marry, therefore homosexuals can marry each other - however marriage is defined? Homosexuals have the right to define marriage however they see fit? Which means anyone can name any type of relationship marriage if they so desire. Leading with your dick won't produce a coherent argument !


TV

wiegraf: Good clown, what years of research are you speaking of? You do realize babies cry because, well, that's what they do? I carried that baby from the mama and gave her to another mama of the same race etc, you think the baby will.....notice?

You really wrote that believing or believing that anyone truly thinks children can simply be passed around like used cars? Sodomites and their vanities !

wiegraf: So, exactly who will the baby form bonds with then? You do know there are many adopted kids that well know they are adopted but have absolutely no desire to meet their biological parents, no? Let alone those that don't even know they're adopted. Steve jobs was one of the former for the most part. But no, all those adopted kids are not in families because they do not meet your standards. I'd ask how dare you, then again you're religious. You already assume this universe was created just for you

So adoption or separation from "biological" parents is best for children? Presumably you'd push for this as policy to ensure sodomites recieve all the "product" they desire?

wiegraf: Perhaps you aren't aware of single fathers raising kids? Maybe they don't exist. Should the children be seized because they're mysigonists? They are not letting the women take care of them, and thats definitely their job. I mean the only thing women are good for is child rearing and cooking. Perhaps gossip as well. Men? Bringing home the bacon. Strictly strong, macho bs only, the good stuff. All those single parents aren't taking care of their children........because you say so

And single fathers are extolling the virtues of raising children sans mothers? Or perhaps screaming it's so much better without women? Or maybe they are single fathers by design? Any sex that willfully procures or abets procurement of a child to raise singly is an abuser.

wiegraf: Do you even know what misogyny is? Don't use big words if you don't understand them. And it works both ways, see misandry...

I would suggest you so likewise with homosexualist use of the word bigot or the totemic homophobia !

wiegraf: Btw , many many gay parents around, with their families researched etc. Guess what? No different than your average family. No ojuju anywhere. Can't be bothered linking cause of phone, but I'll be back with that. And last I checked, it wasn't even a case of adoption, it was their own children, most use their own DNA, so even by your warped nonsensical logic, what's the problem? Unlike adopted kids, at least one of the parents is the biological 'natural' one, so what are you on about?

Gay biased research, without the historical context, proper controls or sample size. Doctored to say what the perverse want to hear. As long as it lets you feel good and moral about what you do with your member, you'll pull anything out of your arse.

wiegraf: And not, I would even argue it's the worse option, as if they're willing to invest into nurturing children there are many (abandoned by your good and proper straight folk mostly) in less than condusive environments, eg homes. And a child is a child, all of them deserving of love and proper care. This obsession with rearing your own child escapes me.

It's always in a childs best interest to be placed with a stable married couple - of opposite sexes.

wiegraf: So no, bros. You don't have a sliver of a case. You don't het to decide for the rest what a family is. That's pure nonsense....

We all know what's best. Disputing that because you have genital confusion is perverse.

wiegraf: Your fellow religionist is the one that points out just how prejudiced your position is, the exact same thing with racism, yet here you are....

Now, imagine back in the day a black family wanting to raise an oyinbo kid...

But noooo, pls proceed with your nonsense

Race is an immutable characteristic that does not predicate behaviour. Sodomy is simply an immoral practice. The sane and wise (let alone the God fearing) will never elevate it to be moral, or deem a homosexual couple the equivalent of a mixed sex couple or worthy of the marriage institution.


TV

itsrandeeboi: If you want to tow that line, why not have this; there will always be whites who think blacks are monkeys, wild animals, slaves, not good enough to marry white people, less than human and simply not normal or civilized. Should we, on the basis of the fact that these people will always exist, return to slavery and returning to the jim crow laws that came before civil rights gained enough strength?

And vice-versa. What has race to do with marriage? What have immutable genetic characteristics to do with chosen behaviour? Remain in cloud cuckoo land if you so choose and convince yourself that anyones preferences or behaviour dictates their rights? Let your willy lead you? !

itsrandeeboi: It still falls flat. A re-defining marriage to include homosexual relationships does not not mean straight people can't get married any more, so your point is very moot. The basics still won't changed; marriage will still be the legal union of two people for whatever purposes they deem fit, be it child bearing, love or anything else. Afterall, people get married for visas now, don't they? I don't see you guys complaining over that, when you consider that they have no plans to have children or even stay together. Redefining the word marriage makes it include a wider bracket not exclude the initial one it covered.

It's not about normal or abnormal, straight or gay, or hetero vs. homo. It's about marriage and what marriage is. How it's defined, the principle behind it and the purpose it serves.

To rework it for sodomites means it has to become something else. We take marriage as it is, make it something else and still call it marriage, whilst leaving nothing in the place of what marriage was. Stop trying to understand or discuss this with your todger !

itsrandeeboi: As for adultery and consummation, those still apply. What would you define adultery and consummation as? Do they apply to only one gender or to both? If they apply only to one gender, then yes, it could become nonsensical in the homosexual context but if not, them it still applies either way. The rules governing adultery and consummation are drawn by the fact there is a legal union i.e marriage not the sex of the people involved. Besides, both are basically moral concepts and barely have real bearing on legality.

Sharrap dia;
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/adultery-and-the-same-sex-marriage-bill/
http://protectthepope.com/?p=6546
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/civil-servants-drafting-uk-marriage-law-lost-words-over-gay-sex021212

itsrandeeboi: You can't look at it from only a canonical christian point of view; not everybody are christians.

No one is forcing the Christian position on anyone. Unfortunately, "gay marriage" forces the immorality on Christians, as we cannot refuse to endorse or celebrate sodomy !
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/six-ways-gay-marriage-england-and-wales-isn%E2%80%99t-quite-%E2%80%98equal%E2%80%99170713

itsrandeeboi: 1) If our sole interest in the marriage arrangement is solely due to the procreative possibility, then a man and woman who want to have children don't need legal codification either and as such, don't have to get married to do so, afterall, all they need is to have sex and voila, here come the kids. You also realize that a man does not need to have sex with a woman any more to procreate and so, as far as he can get a donor for an egg, he can always have a kid, without even having to meet said donor. The legal codification is to make the union legit in the eyes of the law and bestow on the spouses the rights that accrue to them as legal partners in the union.

The best interests of the child and the state both converge when the father is committed to the mother in parenting any offspring they both have. That's why the state rewards marriage. It's the economy stupid - saying from a well know straight brother ! Plus we all know the stats and the costs to individuals and society of broken homes

itsrandeeboi: What something originates as does not mean what it will always be. Ask those that subscribe to the evolution theory and you will hear that we human beings haven't always been like this. Marriage, like government, education, health care and nearly every other institution you can think of may have started with very basic functions that have been expanded to encompass so much more than was previously thought of.

Yawn. If it changes to become something else. lets call it something else. And if an appetite remains for what it was, lets create something new and leave well alone. Simples!

itsrandeeboi: 2) What does it matter if an opposite sex pairing is the basis for procreation or a good setting for children's upbringing WHEN THERE ARE NO CHILDREN TO TALK OF? Marriage is one thing; child birth and upbringing is quite another. You can do either without the other and you wouldn't be breaking the law, so don't make it look like you have to be married to have kids and bring them up properly. The much lauded Ben Carson was the product of a single parent home which clearly lacks one of the oh-so-important parts of the ideal home setting and it appears to me he is doing just fine.

Does the fact that we can separate procreation from nurture mean we should do so by design? Or that it is the best interest of the children? Stop letting your desires lead the discussion

itsrandeeboi: 3) Says who? So, tell me, if you were an orphan about to be adopted into a family, and you are given two options; a drunkard, abusive man who beats up his wife and kids with his drug addled wife who half the time doesn't know what is going on around her AND a gay couple that have no such issues and will love you and give you everything that a child needs for optimum growth and development. Now you are telling me you will pick the abusive family JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A MAN AND WOMAN THERE? I don't need to rehash this, no matter how you incentivise it, a straight couple will always be likely to want their won kids. Not many woman want to be saddled with another woman's kid. So I don't the issue with allowing a gay couple to adopt them and give them a life and opportunity they would otherwise be denied.

Why do you have to compare a worse scenario normal couple with a exemplary gay couple. Straight bashing abi? ! I seen you!

itsrandeeboi: 4) Let's take up your "normal" and see how well it stands. Think of effeminate guys or siamese/conjoined twins. They are not normal right? But who created them? God, right? So, if they are not normal, then God made a mistake, didn't he? And it is now we humans that have to correct God's mistake, right? But if you say no, God didn't make a mistake, then why are we trying to get the effeminate guy to act manly or to separate the conjoined twins? Aren't they "normal" by God's standards; the person who created them? So who now decides what is normal; we or God?

We are all dysfunctional to a degree. Do we now celebrate all genetic, character and dysfunction and statutarily codify them as rights?

Marriage and the best interests of children should always be at the forefront of our thinking and policy, not adult desires, moral or not. You shout rights and trample all over childrens as a starting point .

TV

itsrandeeboi:

Ah, my bad, didn't read page four, else I wouldn't have bothered commenting.

The real reason why you shouldn't have bothered is because you had nothing salient to add. But I'll show why momentarily. !


TV

itsrandeeboi: You do realize that we blacks weren't always this accepted on the global stage as equals, right? Even now, when internationally important issues are being discussed, black nations still take the back seat and are seldom heard. Does that mean we are not good and proper? Think of women in government. Do you you think a woman should be president of this country? How come if you propose this idea to most Nigerian men, they would yell "What?!! A woman?!! No way!!" ? Shouldn't women be as celebrated in the fields of government and politics as men? Aren't they "right, good and proper"?

Yawn, yawn, yawn. Why are you introducing race and gender into a discussion about behaviour and desire?

Race and gender are immutable genetically pre-determined characteristics. Desires and behaviour are not. Stop feeding the board red herring and argue you position on it's merits. Like a real man !

itsrandeeboi: You suggest in this post that there is only one type of human being. Then followed it up by saying we have male and female. Be consistent, brah. Language changes always to better define what it couldn't clearly define before. I don't have any issues with polygamy so I don't know why you keep throwing in polygamy. I have clearly outlined while homosexuality and peadophilia/beastiality/necrophilia and the rest are not the same as have several others on this thread and I will not go back into that.

Duh? How many types of human are there? And is the fact that they are sexed suggestive of two different species? I suppose children are yet another. Why did you come back to this thread again !

Language changes? Perhaps, but not to call what cannot be as if it were. A homosexual union can never qualify as a marriage. That would not be redefinition, it would be butchery.

itsrandeeboi: I don't know where you got that anybody thinks marriage was constituted to infringe on anyone's rights. If it was then gay people should not be clamouring to be included. You keep bringing up procreative coupling like it is the only reason people get married. I have said before that not all people get married to have children. Think of a menopausal 60 year old woman getting married to a 72 year old man. Yes, it happens. Clearly, their chances at having children is tending towards zero so their reason for getting married is more love/desire to stay together for the rest of their lives than have kids. Would you say their union is null, since children are not involved?

Gay people are, gayness isn't. QED !

Procreative in principal if not always in practice. The premises of male/female remains and re-enforces the principle regardless of outcome.

itsrandeeboi: Procreation is not the sole purpose of marriage - you keep carrying it around like a banner when it clearly no longer holds true. In fact, marriage today just for the purpose of having kids is a marriage of convenience - to serve that specific purpose and nothing more. People can procreate without getting married so stop making it like a woman's egg can only be fertilized when she is brandishing a marriage certificate.

Procreation is the reason marriage was instituted. And a marriage for the purpose of children is more than convenient. What other reason is there for marriage that serves state interest or requires state involvement? Waiting !

The state rewards the couples commitments as it is in the best long-term interest of both child and state. A couple merely living together are not deemed married or afforded the rights/benefits of those that are, regardless of whether they have children.

itsrandeeboi: Minimal cost to and minimal intervention by society? How much does homosexuality cost society? In modern society, a man and a woman don't necessarily make an ideal setting - alla the drunk man and drug addicted woman I asked you to imagine above. Sound minds make an ideal setting, whether male or female. Afterall, there are kids that grew up in foster care and homes and still turn out fine in spite of not having a defined mother and father.

Google the health cost of homosexuality, to both individual and state. Start with Gay bowel syndrome. Not pretty I tell you ! The cost to society of homosexuality far outweighs smoking and we do not encourage that so we?

A stable opposite sex union is the best setting for children. Nobody is championing dysfunction here. And for sodomites, it's inherent. Fact!

itsrandeeboi: Sodomy is all about sex - true. But homosexuality and sodomy are two different things; you're just interchanging them to suit your purposes so you can score points. Sodomy is about sex. So is missionary style and all the other styles straight couples engage in. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are about relationships, so you should get that straight.

And marriage is about neither, so whats your point exactly?

itsrandeeboi: As has been pointed out here, incest is a grey area. If i remember my bible correctly, Lot's daughters had children by him. I don't remember anywhere the bible said God punished them for that. That is clearly incest. A lot of cultures have supported incestuous relationships. So I can't comment on incest. If I come across an incestuous couple, I would only voice personal reservations about their choice; not try to get the government to lock them up as far as they are not infringing anybody's fundamental rights.

Can't recall mentioning incest? But whatever the case, it serves society to have a position on decency and morals. Especially where sex is concerned.

itsrandeeboi: Ha - talk about societal benefits! Think armed robbers, rapists, serial killers, assassins - name them. They came from the union of a man and woman, didn't they? What kind of benefits have they accrued to humanity? So don't make it look like straight relationships only produce positive benefits.

What an inane point ! I'm not sure I can dignify this with a response. Like really, this is an argument for gay marriage?

itsrandeeboi: Besides, i keep asking the question, to help those poor orphan kids out there have proper homes, how many have you adopted?

I chose to procreate and nurture! However, if you allow me to implement my Christian worldview end-to-end, I promise the problem will clear up !


TV

TV01: Yawn, yawn, yawn. Why are you introducing race and gender into a discussion about behaviour and desire?

Race and gender are immutable genetically pre-determined characteristics. Desires and behaviour are not. Stop feeding the board red herring and argue you position on it's merits. Like a real man !

Duh? How many types of human are there? And is the fact that they are sexed suggestive of two different species? I suppose children are yet another. Why did you come back to this thread again !

Language changes? Perhaps, but not to call what cannot be as if it were. A homosexual union can never qualify as a marriage. That would not be redefinition, it would be butchery.

Gay people are, gayness isn't. QED !

Procreative in principal if not always in practice. The premises of male/female remains and re-enforces the principle regardless of outcome.



Procreation is the reason marriage was instituted. And a marriage for the purpose of children is more than convenient. What other reason is there for marriage that serves state interest or requires state involvement? Waiting !

The state rewards the couples commitments as it is in the best long-term interest of both child and state. A couple merely living together are not deemed married or afforded the rights/benefits of those that are, regardless of whether they have children.

Google the health cost of homosexuality, to both individual and state. Start with Gay bowel syndrome. Not pretty I tell you ! The cost to society of homosexuality far outweighs smoking and we do not encourage that so we?

A stable opposite sex union is the best setting for children. Nobody is championing dysfunction here. And for sodomites, it's inherent. Fact!

And marriage is about neither, so whats your point exactly?

Can't recall mentioning incest? But whatever the case, it serves society to have a position on decency and morals. Especially where sex is concerned.

What an inane point ! I'm not sure I can dignify this with a response. Like really, this is an argument for gay marriage?

I chose to procreate and nurture! However, if you allow me to implement my Christian worldview end-to-end, I promise the problem will clear up !


TV

What you have done with this post of yours is run away from every point I have put to you because you don't have any cogent response to any of them. A pity, I was hoping for a sound argument but all you have done is blow hot air. I asked what you are doing to help poor, orphaned children to give them a good upbringing and you say you procreate? And, in your head, that is a sound answer? So, because you procreate, orphan children will rejoice because their futures are all bright and happy? You must have LSD rainbows shooting out of your bum!

Really, being homosexual is a chouce? Then heterosexuality must be a choice too. Pray tell, when did you "choose" to be attracted to women?

Really, wiegraf and the others were right. You are offering nothing close to a sound argument. Wonder why Ihedinobi left being the voice of the other side to you seeing as you are doing such a terrible job of it. You sound just like Chibuihem Amalaha!

TV01:

Marriage is axiomatically male/female. That is the basic and immutable essence of it. All your piffle about race, tribe is distractionary and typifies your lack or real argument.

So we're now making things up? Well I declare that marriage is axiomatically white/white. That is the basic and immutable essence of it. All your piffle about sex and procreation is mere distraction and typifies your lack of a real argument.

TV01:
It was made to reflect your warped reasoning, you dummy !

But only succeeded in revealing your ignorant rambling.

TV01:
Because humans can marry, therefore homosexuals can marry each other - however marriage is defined? Homosexuals have the right to define marriage however they see fit? Which means anyone can name any type of relationship marriage if they so desire. Leading with your dick won't produce a coherent argument !


TV

Again, making things up and just mumbling rubbish don't make an argument. Those judges who agree that homosexual couples can marry aren't necessarily homosexual themselves so accusing homosexuals of doing something strange still doesn't work. Leading without a brain won't produce a coherent argument.

debosky:

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.

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

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'.

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.

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.

This post above is entirely misconceived and you have completely missed the point altogether. Let me demonstrate in very simple terms the point being made by me and a couple of others.

1. You want homosexual relationships to be recognised? OK we grant you that.
2. You want homosexual relationships to be considered equal to heterosexual relationships? OK we grant you that.
3. You want homosexual marriages to be recognised? OK we grant you that.
4. You want homosexual marriages to be considered equal to heterosexual marriages? OK we grant you that.


Now having granted all the above, we then pose the following questions to you:

1. Why should a relationship between a brother and sister not also be recognised?
2. Why should a relationship between a brother and sister not also be recognised (especially if they do not want biological children)?
3. Why should a relationship between a father and daughter not also be recognised?
4. Why should a relationship between a father and daughter not also be recognised (especially if they do not want biological children)?
5. Why should a relationship between a man and a dog not also be recognised --- afterall they are both animals (what with the man being an ape)?

itsrandeeboi: What you have done with this post of yours is run away from every point I have put to you because you don't have any cogent response to any of them. A pity, I was hoping for a sound argument but all you have done is blow hot air. I asked what you are doing to help poor, orphaned children to give them a good upbringing and you say you procreate? And, in your head, that is a sound answer? So, because you procreate, orphan children will rejoice because their futures are all bright and happy? You must have LSD rainbows shooting out of your bum!

Really, being homosexual is a chouce? Then heterosexuality must be a choice too. Pray tell, when did you "choose" to be attracted to women?

Really, wiegraf and the others were right. You are offering nothing close to a sound argument. Wonder why Ihedinobi left being the voice of the other side to you seeing as you are doing such a terrible job of it. You sound just like Chibuihem Amalaha!

Nope, I answered every point you made - and in turn. Clearly demonstrating that they were all non points. My position rested on the following arguments;

1. What are the benefits of homosexual "marriage" to society. Why should society reward a committed same-sex couple and not an uncommitted pair or even two men that don't know each other from Adam? Why?

2. What about childrens rights and their best interest? Why should we by design deny them a father or mother and celebrate such wickedness? Why should society accede to the demand that adult desire trumps childrens rights?

3. The health and social costs to the individual and society of encouraging sodomy. Not to mention the moral cost - and I fully understand non-Christians do not accept a moral position, but there is a cost.

4. Why resort to race and gender comparisons when this is about homosexual desire and behaviour? Sodomitic acts remain a choice. Homosexuality is not genetically hard-wired, race and gender are - and demonstrably so. And so obviously contrary to human physiology, therefore intrinsically disordered.

5. Why do you refuse to see that to extend marriage as it is and has always been to gays, means it is no longer marriage, but something else, and we are left without anything that does what marriage has historically done? Why do sodomites feel they have the right to re-define marriage to lay hold of it.

6. Why do you scream terms words such as equality, rights, consenting adults etc, but do not argue for other adult consensual relationship types. Polyamoury, polygamy etc.

7. Equality treats like things alike, it doesn't make different things the same. Neither can it force things that are unalike to be alike by forcing the same outcomes. Please show that homosexual unions are substantively the same in context, content or outcome as heterosexual unions.

8. Why do you have to keep traducing normal couples to make a case for same-sex unions? Are the rights and worth of sodomitic unions not self-evident? Can they not stand alone?

9. Why should rights for sodomites compromise religious rights. I bake, I will sell bread, pastries, doughnuts etc to anyone, but will not bake a cake celebrating the fallacy that is "gay marriage" - and I can be prosecuted for that?

Not a single answer between you. Nothing based on religion, faith, sin or God 0! No references to incest or bestiality. Just the facts. What do l get in return? Contrivance and buzzwords. Epic fail. I wasn't exerted in the slightest. lt was like a turkey shoot! l feel like a bully .


TV

thehomer: So we're now making things up? Well I declare that marriage is axiomatically white/white. That is the basic and immutable essence of it. All your piffle about sex and procreation is mere distraction and typifies your lack of a real argument.

Like a "little boy lost" ! Outboxed, outfought. Beaten and dejected, you descend into pained incoherence. Re-engineer (make-it-up) it all you want, you can't have it !

thehomer: But only succeeded in revealing your ignorant rambling.

I have listed 9 points above answer #1 first. Please, show the board something other than your bitter spite-filled ranting. It's fact driven and not dick led right?

thehomer: Again, making things up and just mumbling rubbish don't make an argument. Those judges who agree that homosexual couples can marry aren't necessarily homosexual themselves so accusing homosexuals of doing something strange still doesn't work. Leading without a brain won't produce a coherent argument.

Activist judges - most of whom are homosexual/homosexualists. Did they invent or coin marriage? Did the state sef? It's instructive that nowhere has it happened on a free vote or referendum. So because a judge rules, it's right and for the best. Feeble, utterly feeble.

Nothing for the boys in this case. Sorry 0!


TV

That was a wonderful post. Not so many work so hard to prove me right. Thank you.

Addressing the folly in there would be...well.. So I'll just focus on these and take my leave

TV01:
And single fathers are extolling the virtues of raising children sans mothers?

Yes. Your values are not their values. Sorry. That's the fact.

Then, and again, you do think the universe is built just for you.

TV01:
Race is an immutable characteristic that does not predicate behaviour. Sodomy is simply an immoral practice. The sane and wise (let alone the God fearing) will never elevate it to be moral, or deem a homosexual couple the equivalent of a mixed sex couple or worthy of the marriage institution.

The arrogance, selfishness of religious folk always leaves me puzzled. This is one of the most foolish statements I've come across. It's just a wee bit too long else it'd be my new sig. Not just the silly proclamations, eg "homosexuality is simply an immoral practice" and implying sexuality is a choice, you also seem to be saying it's fine to discriminate so long as the xteristic is 'mutable' and you and your 'sane and wise (let alone dog fearing)' bigots disapprove.

To be fair, a positive here is your acknowledging amidst all your rabble that your opposition is simply a moral issue, so you recognize all that nonsense about procreation is just that; nonsense. There is nothing objective about your opposition, gay people can raise kids for instance, simply not in a fashion that fits your moral views

Goot. That's a start, but like I said earlier, I'm afraid I'm not paid to educate you.

Kudos

TV01:

Au contraire mon frere.

I have consistently pivoted my response to you on the "benefit to society" claim.

So what - for the benefit of society - distinguishes a committed homosexual couple from an uncommitted homosexual couple or even two men who don't even know each other from Adam?

Why should we discriminate - in terms of rewarding them - in favour of the committed couple?

TV

If its not about procreation what for the benefit of society distinguishes a committed heterosexual couple from an uncommitted one.
Why should we discriminate - in terms of rewarding them - in favour of the committed couple?

Redlyn:

If its not about procreation what for the benefit of society distinguishes a committed heterosexual couple from an uncommitted one.
Why should we discriminate - in terms of rewarding them - in favour of the committed couple?

Still trying to convince that one? Give it up already. Since Ihedinobi left this thread (and Nairaland) nothing close to a sound argument has been proffered by these guys (aka TV01). All he has been waving in the air is his procreation hogwash which, at best, stands on very wobbly feet. At this point, he is replying just because so he doesn't appear beaten. He has only presented one thing that, in his mind, is an actual point, since he joined this discussion and has consistently run away from pointed questions only to turn around to claim he has debunked them.

That Mr Bean strategy does not win arguments or convince people, my friend.

TV01: Like a "little boy lost" ! Outboxed, outfought. Beaten and dejected, you descend into pained incoherence. Re-engineer (make-it-up) it all you want, you can't have it !

Oops. Looks like you see your stance as incoherent. Don't blame me for your poor reasoning ability.

TV01:
I have listed 9 points above answer #1 first. Please, show the board something other than your bitter spite-filled ranting. It's fact driven and not dick led right?

Your so-called points are just more aimless rambling most of which have been addressed before but in your confused ignorance, you've run from my responses. You can start by actually addressing what I've written. How on earth is it bitter to grant people rights that others have? This further demonstrates your confusion.

TV01:
Activist judges - most of whom are homosexual/homosexualists. Did they invent or coin marriage? Did the state sef? It's instructive that nowhere has it happened on a free vote or referendum. So because a judge rules, it's right and for the best. Feeble, utterly feeble.

Nothing for the boys in this case. Sorry 0!


TV

So all judges who point out reasonably that homosexuals can get married are homosexual? This to me is just more poor reasoning on display. If someone disagrees with them, just label them as belonging to whatever group you oppose. Seriously, learn how to have a discussion because you're just embarrassing yourself.

Whenever your brain finally migrates out of your colon, you can let me know by addressing points I've made.

Enigma:


This post above is entirely misconceived and you have completely missed the point altogether. Let me demonstrate in very simple terms the point being made by me and a couple of others.

1. You want homosexual relationships to be recognised? OK we grant you that.
2. You want homosexual relationships to be considered equal to heterosexual relationships? OK we grant you that.
3. You want homosexual marriages to be recognised? OK we grant you that.
4. You want homosexual marriages to be considered equal to heterosexual marriages? OK we grant you that.


Now having granted all the above, we then pose the following questions to you:

1. Why should a relationship between a brother and sister not also be recognised?
2. Why should a relationship between a brother and sister not also be recognised (especially if they do not want biological children)?
3. Why should a relationship between a father and daughter not also be recognised?
4. Why should a relationship between a father and daughter not also be recognised (especially if they do not want biological children)?
5. Why should a relationship between a man and a dog not also be recognised --- afterall they are both animals (what with the man being an ape)?

Why shouldn't all you've listed be recognized given the fact that we recognize heterosexual marriage?

@Enigma,

Please don't let Debosky get away with this sleight of hand;

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'.

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

Incorrectly contrasting two totally different things in order to make a non-point.

TV

Redlyn: If its not about procreation what for the benefit of society distinguishes a committed heterosexual couple from an uncommitted one.
Why should we discriminate - in terms of rewarding them - in favour of the committed couple?

If I point to procreation by a couple in a committed union - marriage - as a benefit to society worth supporting and rewarding by said society, I have at least pointed to something no? If it's about procreation, it's about something.

Once again, please provide an answer to the following question;

So what - for the benefit of society - distinguishes a committed homosexual couple from an uncommitted homosexual couple or even two men who don't even know each other from Adam? Why should we discriminate in favour of the committed couple by legally codifying their relationship and giving them benefits?

What's it all about ?

HNY

TV

wiegraf: Yes. Your values are not their values. Sorry. That's the fact.

Then, and again, you do think the universe is built just for you.

Clearly demonstrate your moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy.

So whatever anyone decides to do, is fine as long as it's according to "their self-arrogated values and moral norms".

1. So let me ask, what of the rights of children? Trumped by perverted desire, selfish values and warped morality huh?
2. If ones values suggest 2 year-olds are fine as sexual partners, I guess that's fine by you as well?
3. How about a dromedary? No problem right? As long as one deems it morally acceptable in their own head?

See why homosexuality is likened paedophilia and bestiality now? And how arrogant, self-arrogation means anything goes?

A deviant with a totally reprobate mind.

wiegraf: The arrogance, selfishness of religious folk always leaves me puzzled. This is one of the most foolish statements I've come across. It's just a wee bit too long else it'd be my new sig. Not just the silly proclamations, eg "homosexuality is simply an immoral practice" and implying sexuality is a choice, you also seem to be saying it's fine to discriminate so long as the xteristic is 'mutable' and you and your 'sane and wise (let alone dog fearing)' bigots disapprove.

Yes, it's a choice and wherever there's a choice, one option is discriminated against. For one that is dehumanising, degrading and dangerous, it's a no-brainer. Especially at a societal level.

wiegraf: To be fair, a positive here is your acknowledging amidst all your rabble that your opposition is simply a moral issue, so you recognize all that nonsense about procreation is just that; nonsense. There is nothing objective about your opposition, gay people can raise kids for instance, simply not in a fashion that fits your moral views

Goot. That's a start, but like I said earlier, I'm afraid I'm not paid to educate you.

Kudos

Lie all you like. It's a question of

1. benefit to society
2. Cost to society
3. Human physiology and functionality
4. Morals & decency
5. Faith - for those who posses it.


TV

itsrandeeboi:

Still trying to convince that one? Give it up already. Since Ihedinobi left this thread (and Nairaland) nothing close to a sound argument has been proffered by these guys (aka TV01). All he has been waving in the air is his procreation hogwash which, at best, stands on very wobbly feet. At this point, he is replying just because so he doesn't appear beaten. He has only presented one thing that, in his mind, is an actual point, since he joined this discussion and has consistently run away from pointed questions only to turn around to claim he has debunked them.

That Mr Bean strategy does not win arguments or convince people, my friend.

...just #1 na? Not a single answer. Just evasiveness, whinging and ad hominem. Prison girlfriend applicant. Rightly beach slapped !


TV

thehomer: Why shouldn't all you've listed be recognized given the fact that we recognize heterosexual marriage?

Pathetic straining.

Marriage is not "heterosexual"

Can Sodomites think with anything other than their g3nitalia?

thehomer: Whenever your brain finally migrates out of your colon, you can let me know by addressing points I've made.

At least my brain wasn't prevented from getting to my colon by an alien tallywhacker taking up residence !


TV

TV01:

...just #1 na? Not a single answer. Just evasiveness, whinging and ad hominem. Prison girlfriend applicant. Rightly beach slapped !


TV

Beach slapped? I think you should just stick to smoking procreation pot.

TV01:

Pathetic straining.

Marriage is not "heterosexual"

Can Sodomites think with anything other than their g3nitalia?

I guess female homosexuals are just fine by you.

If marriage can also be homosexual, then what is your complaint?

Can heterosexuals think with anything other than their Instruments?

TV01:
At least my brain wasn't prevented from getting to my colon by an alien tallywhacker taking up residence !


TV

Since you accept that your brain is in your colon, I see no reason to continue this discussion with you. Let me know when your brain is out of your colon.

TV01:

If I point to procreation by a couple in a committed union - marriage - as a benefit to society worth supporting and rewarding by said society, I have at least pointed to something no? If it's about procreation, it's about something.

Once again, please provide an answer to the following question;

So what - for the benefit of society - distinguishes a committed homosexual couple from an uncommitted homosexual couple or even two men who don't even know each other from Adam? Why should we discriminate in favour of the committed couple by legally codifying their relationship and giving them benefits?

What's it all about ?

HNY

TV

So its all about procreating as you have been unable to point to anything else.

So lets go back to my previous statement. In which way is this false:

"According to you marriage is there solely for procreation. So if you can't procreate there is no real reason for you to marry.
You cannot understand why any non procreating couple would possibly want to marry.
Since It's only about procreating that makes all infertile unions pointless."

Do you agree this is your point of view.

Redlyn:

So its all about procreating as you have been unable to point to anything else.

So lets go back to my previous statement. In which way is this false:

"According to you marriage is there solely for procreation. So if you can't procreate there is no real reason for you to marry.
You cannot understand why any non procreating couple would possibly want to marry.
Since It's only about procreating that makes all infertile unions pointless."

Do you agree this is your point of view.

Marriage as endorsed and rewarded by society is about the benefit of marriage to society. Not about race, "orientation", preferences or any other characteristic, immutable or not, genetic or not.

Now, please answer the question posed.

So what - for the benefit of society - distinguishes a committed homosexual couple from an uncommitted homosexual couple or even two men who don't know each other from Adam? Why should we discriminate in favour of the committed couple by legally codifying their relationship and giving them benefits?


TV

TV01:

Marriage as endorsed and rewarded by society is about the benefit of marriage to society. Not about race, "orientation", preferences or any other characteristic, immutable or not, genetic or not.

Maybe you should say was - society is now endorsing same sex marriage without the necessity of being beneficial to the society, but rather as an endorsement of the fullness of the homosexual person, as opposed to what applied previously.

Still haven't answered my simple question.
Do you agree. Yes or no. If no, where do you disagree. Simple.

Redlyn: Still haven't answered my simple question.
Do you agree. Yes or no. If no, where do you disagree. Simple.

No, I do not agree. Kindly answer the question which I have posed to you numerous times and I will gladly explicate further.


TV

debosky:

Maybe you should say was - society is now endorsing same sex marriage without the necessity of being beneficial to the society, but rather as an endorsement of the fullness of the homosexual person, as opposed to what applied previously.

1. So, it's not about marriage, it's about validating the homosexual orientation & lifestyle?

2. It's a fallacy to term this "society'" doing, as nowhere SSM has been enacted, has it been by referendum. Always by political/judicial activism.

3. What of non-committed homosexual couples? Do they somehow lack fullness as people? Or even non-committed hets?

4. Why does society have to "reward" as well as endorse?

5. What of other sexualities or orientations, should their "fullness" not be acknowledged and endorsed by re-defining marriage to include them?


Not that anyone has claimed that homosexuals are not "full - or complete - people".

a. Homosexuals are humans, - no gainsaying, having the same worth and deserving the same dignity as all humans

b. humans have the right to marry - absolutely, same, worth, same value, same fundamental human rights as all

c. therefore homosexuals can marry - like everyone - bar certain restrictions age, kinship etc. - a member of the opposite sex

I personally can't help viewing it as grasping and somewhat odd to suggest that re-defining marriage out of all meaning is a way, let alone the best way of endorsing homosexual fullness.


TV

TV01:

No, I do not agree. Kindly answer the question which I have posed to you numerous times and I will gladly explicate further.


TV

Your question has been asked and answered. Was it not one of the questions you posed in your list of questions. No point repeating myself as you have your point of view and no answer will be satisfactory for you. I have heard your arguments. You are yet to fully answer mine though.