Redlyn:

Your question has been asked and answered.

Where? Kindly point it out or re-post and I'll get right on to your question !


TV

TV01:

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

It is about validating people.

TV01:
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.

Well, civil rights weren't enacted by referendum but by political/judicial activism. I guess we should always let the majority decide on whether or not minorities should have rights that they (majority) possess.

TV01:
3. What of non-committed homosexual couples? Do they somehow lack fullness as people? Or even non-committed hets?

Do they want to get married?

TV01:
4. Why does society have to "reward" as well as endorse?

You're the one who keeps talking about some benefits to the society when it comes to marriage. Have you asked yourself why the society must have a benefit?

TV01:
5. What of other sexualities or orientations, should their "fullness" not be acknowledged and endorsed by re-defining marriage to include them?

What other orientations do you have in mind that don't come up with regards to heterosexual marriage?

TV01:
Not that anyone has claimed that homosexuals are not "full - or complete - people".

That is what you claim when you say they shouldn't be able to get married since "full or complete people" can get married.

TV01:
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

How is the meaning of marriage lost? It is still between two people and is still recognized.

thehomer: It is about validating people.

Huh? And that is the states job? And it needs to reward them as a sign of that validation? And it also needs to redefine marriage to do so?

thehomer: Well, civil rights weren't enacted by referendum but by political/judicial activism. I guess we should always let the majority decide on whether or not minorities should have rights that they (majority) possess.

There are no real "people minorities". No exceptions are required except for children and possibly the vulnerable. Human rights are for all, no other "rights types" required.

The right "to marry" remains available to all, subject to what marriage is. What is being asked, is a right to re-define marriage just because of how some chooses to be s3xually intimate. So what this is, is the minority deciding for the majority, as they are re-defining marriage just too suit them. Tyranny by the minority over the majority.

thehomer: Do they want to get married?

That's besides the point. Do they or an opposite sex couple lack fullness because they are not married?

thehomer: You're the one who keeps talking about some benefits to the society when it comes to marriage. Have you asked yourself why the society must have a benefit?

Yes, because if there is no reason to - no benefit or cost - the state does not get involved to endorse, regulate, or reward personal relationships.

thehomer: What other orientations do you have in mind that don't come up with regards to heterosexual marriage?

Any orientation or preference anyone cares to name. Why should "fullness" not be ascribed and state endorsement/rewardgs given to Paedophiles or zoophiles? What of Polygamists or polyamourists?

thehomer: That is what you claim when you say they shouldn't be able to get married since "full or complete people" can get married.

And nobody has every been asked their orientation or preference as a pre-requisite to getting married. So, homosexuals are full and complete and can marry -just like everyone else - a member of the opposite sex!

Why should homosexuals be given leave to re-define marriage just to suit their sexual preferences? Especially when it ceases to be what it implicitly is, or serve the main purpose for which it arose.

thehomer: How is the meaning of marriage lost? It is still between two people and is still recognized.

That is simply disingenuous. It is lost because it is axiomatically between a male/female pair. Why do you insist it being about "two", which is also axiomatic, but not about opposite sexes? If any of the premises can be varied to suit differing orientations or preferences, then why not all?


TV

TV01: Huh? And that is the states job? And it needs to reward them as a sign of that validation? And it also needs to redefine marriage to do so?

So what is the state's job? What reward are you talking about that citizens shouldn't get? Who says it is a redefinition?

TV01:
There are no real "people minorities". No exceptions are required except for children and possibly the vulnerable. Human rights are for all, no other "rights types" required.

The right "to marry" remains available to all, subject to what marriage is. What is being asked, is a right to re-define marriage just because of how some chooses to be s3xually intimate. So what this is, is the minority deciding for the majority, as they are re-defining marriage just too suit them. Tyranny by the minority over the majority.

Would the right to marry be available to an interracial couple if marriage were defined as only being between members of one race? This is why I ask you what you think is the redefinition.

TV01:
That's besides the point. Do they or an opposite sex couple lack fullness because they are not married?

No that is the point. If two people don't want to get married, what then is the point of asking if they should have the rights of married people?

TV01:
Yes, because if there is no reason to - no benefit or cost - the state does not get involved to endorse, regulate, or reward personal relationships.

You're deeply confused. I asked you why the society should benefit and you say the state should benefit otherwise it shouldn't endorse, regulate or reward relationships. My question is: why should the society benefit in the first place? Not what the state should be able to do.

TV01:
Any orientation or preference anyone cares to name. Why should "fullness" not be ascribed and state endorsement/rewardgs given to Paedophiles or zoophiles? What of Polygamists or polyamourists?

Why shouldn't this "fullness" be ascribed to paedophiles, zoophiles, polygamists and polyamorists now that we have heterosexual marriages?

TV01:
And nobody has every been asked their orientation or preference as a pre-requisite to getting married. So, homosexuals are full and complete and can marry -just like everyone else - a member of the opposite sex!

Why should homosexuals be given leave to re-define marriage just to suit their sexual preferences? Especially when it ceases to be what it implicitly is, or serve the main purpose for which it arose.

How is it a redefinition? Who are you to declare what the purpose of marriage is?

TV01:
That is simply disingenuous. It is lost because it is axiomatically between a male/female pair. Why do you insist it being about "two", which is also axiomatic, but not about opposite sexes? If any of the premises can be varied to suit differing orientations or preferences, then why not all?


TV

No it isn't axiomatic. You should look up the meaning of that word because you're misusing it and that leads to your statement being devoid of meaning.

TV01:

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

It is about marriage - simply an extension of what is considered a right to other members of society. It is not about procreation - which is your conception of marriage centers around.

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.

Society makes laws through its institutions and democratically elected bodies. Those decisions in effect reflect the will of society. If society disagrees, it will elect bodies who will repeal such laws.

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

The answer is in their non-committed status - those that choose to be committed can choose to marry, emphasis on choice. That option remains open to non-committed couples of hetero or homosexual orientation.

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

What is the reward? Can you define it please?

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

If society deems to do so, then it will happen. Don't be in a hurry.

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

It has been claimed that they are defective/abnormal/deviant has it not?

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.

It is not redefined 'out of all meaning' - the root of marriage is commitment/companionship, not procreation. That element of commitment to another individual exists within gay marriage.

I'm not sure it is considered the 'best' way or even 'a' way of endorsing homosexual fullness. It is simply saying - in the eyes of the state - there should be no difference in treatment of committed hetero and homo couples - they should both have the same choices open to them.

@Redlyn, @thehomer, @debosky, @wiegraf, @All,

It’s obvious that we have two diametrically opposed and pretty much entrenched positions here. And in terms of agreement at least, an impasse. In fact, there’s little if any middle ground. And thinking about it, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

I believe marriage is primarily about the utility to society. Creating a supportive framework around the procreative potential of the male/female pairing is the reason marriage has come into being, and across pretty much all cultures. Marriage is the unquestionably best setting - and at the least cost to society - for raising children. It is axiomatically male/female, as anything else means its essence is lost.

This notwithstanding the host of other benefits, including mutual love and support, companionship, shared family ties and history. The traditional family serves societal well-being and “inter-connectedness” in a way no other relationship does. That is why it is rightly endorsed and rewarded by the state.

In response, I have heard arguments about equality and comparisons to the black civil rights struggle. There have been rejoinders abut “ validation” and “sameness”. None of which I believe bear real scrutiny, or are even about marriage per se. All focusing on the wants and desires of a self-identified minority. And all of which I have repeatedly and consistently rebutted.

So in as much as it does happen, all we can really do is wait and see. Will it have a deleterious effect on society? Will “homosexualising” marriage make it effectively redundant? Will attempts to legally sanitise what many consider abominable or at least immoral actually work? Will state sanction end this discussion? Will legal sanctions against those in disagreement lead to conflict and a backlash? I guess we’ll see.

I’m a Christian and unrepentantly opposed to what is clearly portrayed as sinful in the biblical narrative. And like all sound biblical doctrines, the practical outworking of this error are and will be clear to see.

I’m a father, ready to go to great lengths to best raise and nurture my children. And no, all things being equal, I won’t ever believe that two men or two women could that better than their biological parents.

I think this one will run and run.


Best
TV

I gave up on this thread a long time ago.
Nothing new to be heard form you or to be said by me.
Difference in philosophy really.
Gay marriage is the civil rights movement of the 21st century.
In Africa we are still far behind. We are still fighting decriminalizing homosexuality in many countries nevermind gay marriage.
I take comfort in the fact that the world at large is promoting individual freedom more and more and recognizing people's right to live as they choose.

TV01: @Redlyn, @thehomer, @debosky, @wiegraf, @All,

It’s obvious that we have two diametrically opposed and pretty much entrenched positions here. And in terms of agreement at least, an impasse. In fact, there’s little if any middle ground. And thinking about it, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

No it isn't a bad thing especially because you're wrong.

TV01:
I believe marriage is primarily about the utility to society. Creating a supportive framework around the procreative potential of the male/female pairing is the reason marriage has come into being, and across pretty much all cultures. Marriage is the unquestionably best setting - and at the least cost to society - for raising children. It is axiomatically male/female, as anything else means its essence is lost.

Your belief is deeply erroneous because a society is formed for people people aren't born for the sake of the society. If procreation was the aim of marriage, then you have to stop infertile people from getting married. Misusing the concept of an axiom doesn't help you in any way. It simply demonstrates the weakness of your argument.

TV01:
This notwithstanding the host of other benefits, including mutual love and support, companionship, shared family ties and history. The traditional family serves societal well-being and “inter-connectedness” in a way no other relationship does. That is why it is rightly endorsed and rewarded by the state.

Who says homosexual relationships don't have these other benefits you've listed here?

TV01:
In response, I have heard arguments about equality and comparisons to the black civil rights struggle. There have been rejoinders abut “ validation” and “sameness”. None of which I believe bear real scrutiny, or are even about marriage per se. All focusing on the wants and desires of a self-identified minority. And all of which I have repeatedly and consistently rebutted.

Actually, those arguments are about marriage and about the rights members of a society have. You haven't rebutted any of those arguments successfully.

TV01:
So in as much as it does happen, all we can really do is wait and see. Will it have a deleterious effect on society? Will “homosexualising” marriage make it effectively redundant? Will attempts to legally sanitise what many consider abominable or at least immoral actually work? Will state sanction end this discussion? Will legal sanctions against those in disagreement lead to conflict and a backlash? I guess we’ll see.

Looks like you're misusing the word "redundant" here too. You should try to use words as they're used in the language you're using to communicate.

TV01:
I’m a Christian and unrepentantly opposed to what is clearly portrayed as sinful in the biblical narrative. And like all sound biblical doctrines, the practical outworking of this error are and will be clear to see.

The Bible also says it is sinful to work on the Sabbath, sinful to allow witches to live and sinful to wear clothes of mixed fabrics. Maybe it isn't sound doctrine or we've just discovered that they were erroneous.

TV01:
I’m a father, ready to go to great lengths to best raise and nurture my children. And no, all things being equal, I won’t ever believe that two men or two women could that better than their biological parents.

We're glad to know that human rights don't rest on your personal beliefs. I guess you're also against any adoption since children raised by adoptive parents aren't being raised by their biological parents. I also wonder what you'll say to parents who abuse their children by sacrificing them to some God or who are willing to slit their throats on behalf of some God.

TV01:
I think this one will run and run.


Best
TV

It'll continue until it goes the way mixed-race marriages have gone.

^^^ You are filthy, perverse, wretched, disgusting, without any ethics or morals whatsoever, and the lowest minded scoundrel in existence if you would subject innocent children to such a raising.

Not surprising anyway. Since you and your reprobate perverted ante diluvian bovine recidivists do declare against the existence of morality.

You are frankly the lowest dirtiest most repulsive human being I could ever conceive.

Swine. Piece of sh1t.

TV01: , @debosky

I’m a Christian and unrepentantly opposed to what is clearly portrayed as sinful in the biblical narrative. And like all sound biblical doctrines, the practical outworking of this error are and will be clear to see.

I am a Christian as well, however I do not seek to enforce my views on others, particularly those who do not share my convictions. If society has said homosexuality is normal, permitted and not 'sinful', then those who are normal should have all the rights of normal people. Anything to the contray indicates that society is engaging in hypocrisy.

If you are truly advocating a Christian position then your condemnation shouldn't start with marriage , it is about condemnation of homosexuality in all it's forms and, ultimately, outlawing it since you feel the state shouldn't 'change' what has existed before it. To fail to do so reveals an inconsistency in your position.

I’m a father, ready to go to great lengths to best raise and nurture my children. And no, all things being equal, I won’t ever believe that two men or two women could that better than their biological parents.

I think this one will run and run.


Best
TV

I wish you well as you do your best - but realise one thing: it's not a competition about who can do it better.

No one is forcing anyone to be homosexual - the obsession with trying to control what they can/can't do by people not impacted by their actions is quite worrying.

^^^ People not impacted by their actions? Are you out of your mind? Kids they adopt would not be 'impacted by their actions??'

Good grief.

^^^^

This time you aren't even going to sugarcoat your $hit?

What was that nonsense eediocy of natural orders again?

Some of the most asinine $hit on parade here.....

wiegraf: ^^^^

This time you aren't even going to sugarcoat your $hit?

What was that nonsense eediocy of natural orders again?

Some of the most asinine $hit on parade here.....

O, talking about asinine, I'm not the one pleading for asinine s.ex here, or marriages built on asinine se.xual practices.

Deep Sight: ^^^ You are filthy, perverse, wretched, disgusting, without any ethics or morals whatsoever, and the lowest minded scoundrel in existence if you would subject innocent children to such a raising.

So much bloviation because you're too incompetent to formulate a reasonable argument. The fact that your disgust meter is turned up to 22 doesn't mean you've used your brain in a sensible way to make an argument.

Deep Sight:
Not surprising anyway. Since you and your reprobate perverted ante diluvian bovine recidivists do declare against the existence of morality.

Punk stop crying and think up a cogent argument.

Deep Sight:
You are frankly the lowest dirtiest most repulsive human being I could ever conceive.

Why thank you. I guess every other person you'll ever encounter after me would be better human beings than you.

Deep Sight:
Swine. Piece of sh1t.

Come back when you're grown up enough to think rather than rage impotently.

Deep Sight: ^^^ People not impacted by their actions? Are you out of your mind? Kids they adopt would not be 'impacted by their actions??'

Good grief.

What is this impact you're so scared of?

^^^ I'll pass. Enjoy yourself.

Redlyn: Gay marriage is the civil rights movement of the 21st century.

No it's not. The term is a contrivance. As it's not really about rights, it's about forcing those who view the homosexual lifestyle negatively, to accept and endorse it. And by state fiat. Debosky got it right - even if unintentionally - when he spoke about "gay marriage" being a way to validate homosexuality".

Redlyn: In Africa we are still far behind. We are still fighting decriminalizing homosexuality in many countries nevermind gay marriage. I take comfort in the fact that the world at large is promoting individual freedom more and more and recognizing people's right to live as they choose.

Which in a sense turns your argument on it's head and exposes that contrivance.

State intervention in relationships is exactly what liberterians and those espousing "individual freedoms" do not want. The ideology demands that people are free to live as they want, the only provisos being adult consent and no harm? to anyone. Which is what you have implicitly stated at the last "...to live as they choose".

Even in Africa, people are pretty much free to do so. The push for "gay marirage", is not about rights or freedoms, it's about normalising the homosexual lifestyle. It's about state endorsement and legally forced support. Even for those who don't agree with it.

And that "individual freedom" and right to "live as one chooses" does not extend to those who don't accept or endorse the the homosexual lifestyle. And therein lies the rub and the source of conflict.

I want the freedom and the right to raise my children as I see fit. That means introducing them to sexuality at a time and in a fashion I deem appropriate.

It means, teaching them that the natural and obvious complimentarity of the male/female pairing within a committed marital relationship is the healthiest, safest and most rewarding.

It means educating and steering them clear of the self-loathing, guilt, depression, substance abuse and self-harm that typically accompanies the homosexual lifestyle.

All of which will be threatened if we socially endorse homosexuality via gay marriage.


TV

debosky: I am a Christian as well, however I do not seek to enforce my views on others, particularly those who do not share my convictions. If society has said homosexuality is normal, permitted and not 'sinful', then those who are normal should have all the rights of normal people. Anything to the contray indicates that society is engaging in hypocrisy.

Which is where you miss the point. I do not seek to convict or condemn anyone for not believing, but equally retain the right to air my views based on my beliefs. And this is not about "gay rights", it's about marriage and what it is, means and does.

debosky: If you are truly advocating a Christian position then your condemnation shouldn't start with marriage , it is about condemnation of homosexuality in all it's forms and, ultimately, outlawing it since you feel the state shouldn't 'change' what has existed before it. To fail to do so reveals an inconsistency in your position.

And I have clearly stated my stance on homosexuality. Whether it should be outlawed is a different question to whether it should be equated to normal functioning. And from a scriptural point of view, sodomy as a crime would have to be considered along with all the other forms of deviant sexual practice.

Like we don't necessarily criminalise pre-marital sex, we shouldn't necessarily prosecute sodomy. But at least we don't expect the state to endorse & reward PMS?

debosky: I wish you well as you do your best - but realise one thing: it's not a competition about who can do it better.

It is about best. Best for children. And you might say it's a consideration of their rights.

debosky: No one is forcing anyone to be homosexual - the obsession with trying to control what they can/can't do by people not impacted by their actions is quite worrying.

Again, you either ignorantly or wilfully miss the point. I do not wish to participate in or validate the homosexual lifestyle. State endorsement via "gay marriage" will force me to do so.


TV

Deep Sight: ^^^ You are filthy, perverse, wretched, disgusting, without any ethics or morals whatsoever, and the lowest minded scoundrel in existence if you would subject innocent children to such a raising.

Not surprising anyway. Since you and your reprobate perverted ante diluvian bovine recidivists do declare against the existence of morality.

You are frankly the lowest dirtiest most repulsive human being I could ever conceive.

Swine. Piece of sh1t.

You forgot to add troll . He lends nothing except catty remarks and pained outrage.


TV

In many countries in Africa homosexuals are locked up actually.
Someone else's gay union does not prevent you from educating your kids as you wish. There are many people living lifestyles we disapprove of. You simply limit as much as possible your interaction with these people. You don't have to like it, but you should tolerate it as the world is diverse and we are only discussing about 2 adults loving each other.

Replace homosexuality with interracial lifestyle in your post and the arguments were exactly the same, no regards to someone else's quality of life. The world is going in one direction and that is more and more state recognition of gay relationships (either civil union or marriage) by the countries who care about improving everyone's quality of life over the various religious agendas of the majority. I feel quite certain this discussion will go the way of may others of its kind and become history.

Deep Sight:
^^^ I'll pass. Enjoy yourself.

I see. You really had no argument or thoughts to contribute just demonstrating your outrage by ranting. As a lawyer, you should have learned how to present an argument and evidence supporting your case rather than just shouting and raging.

I'm still here whenever you choose to try to think and contribute to the discussion.

TV01:

No it's not. The term is a contrivance. As it's not really about rights, it's about forcing those who view the homosexual lifestyle negatively, to accept and endorse it. And by state fiat. Debosky got it right - even if unintentionally - when he spoke about "gay marriage" being a way to validate homosexuality".

Of course. Civil rights wasn't about rights, it was about forcing those who viewed the black lifestyle negatively to accept and endorse it.

Do you really not see how ridiculous your statement is?

TV01:
Which in a sense turns your argument on it's head and exposes that contrivance.

State intervention in relationships is exactly what liberterians and those espousing "individual freedoms" do not want. The ideology demands that people are free to live as they want, the only provisos being adult consent and no harm? to anyone. Which is what you have implicitly stated at the last "...to live as they choose".

Is there something wrong with this view when it comes to marriage?

TV01:
Even in Africa, people are pretty much free to do so. The push for "gay marirage", is not about rights or freedoms, it's about normalising the homosexual lifestyle. It's about state endorsement and legally forced support. Even for those who don't agree with it.

Actually, it is about rights and freedoms. Simply denying that fact doesn't make your claim true.

TV01:
And that "individual freedom" and right to "live as one chooses" does not extend to those who don't accept or endorse the the homosexual lifestyle. And therein lies the rub and the source of conflict.

No one is being asked to become homosexual. They're being asked to allow homosexuals to live their lives as they see fit.

TV01:
I want the freedom and the right to raise my children as I see fit. That means introducing them to sexuality at a time and in a fashion I deem appropriate.

It means, teaching them that the natural and obvious complimentarity of the male/female pairing within a committed marital relationship is the healthiest, safest and most rewarding.

It means educating and steering them clear of the self-loathing, guilt, depression, substance abuse and self-harm that typically accompanies the homosexual lifestyle.

All of which will be threatened if we socially endorse homosexuality via gay marriage.


TV

How does allowing homosexuality stop you from teaching your children whatever you want even when what you're teaching them is wrong? As Louis C. K once pointed out, you want some people to be denied their rights because you can't talk to your own children?

TV01:

You forgot to add troll . He lends nothing except catty remarks and pained outrage.


TV

If you could read, you'd have seen the arguments and direct rebuttals to your assertions.

The arguments being used to support homosexuality are essentially erroneous. And it is a great shame to compare the gay-rights movement to the civil rights movement. It really shows the lies many have bought into. There is no similarity if you understand what the civil rights movement was about. The greatest of which is that because the western world is scientifically more advanced than we Africans, it also means they are morally/ethically superior and that we ought to mimic their every move. This is a notion I keep seeing here on NL and we must be careful of it. It is colonial mentality. Yes, we as Africans can learn the concept of human rights from the west, but it must be tempered with common sense. Human rights isn't the same as doing whatever you want just because you have a certain disposition.

I do advocate that gay persons be treated with dignity and respect but I do not hesitate to state that homosexuality is a sin.

As the world approaches moral relativism, good and bad, right and wrong will have no meaning. Aftee all, the same arguments offered for homosexuality also justify incest. God help us.

Deep Sight:

O, talking about asinine, I'm not the one pleading for asinine s.ex here, or marriages built on asinine se.xual practices.

As usual, excellent language skills in some respects. Terrible reasoning on most other levels though, the inability to grasp the simplest of things, and some willful blindness. In other words; a fancier version of the average @josh post

googlod:

asinine
ˈasɪnʌɪn/
adjective
adjective: asinine

1. extremely stupid or foolish.

Something disgusting you doesn't make said deed asinine (it could possibly make you a prude, bigot, etc though, depending). On the other hand, something foo.lish, like your post or "natural order" nonsense, = asinine

NativeBoy: The arguments being used to support homosexuality are essentially erroneous. And it is a great shame to compare the gay-rights movement to the civil rights movement. It really shows the lies many have bought into. There is no similarity if you understand what the civil rights movement was about. The greatest of which is that because the western world is scientifically more advanced than we Africans, it also means they are morally/ethically superior and that we ought to mimic their every move. This is a notion I keep seeing here on NL and we must be careful of it. It is colonial mentality. Yes, we as Africans can learn the concept of human rights from the west, but it must be tempered with common sense. Human rights isn't the same as doing whatever you want just because you have a certain disposition.

What are the erroneous arguments? Actually, the similarities are glaringly obvious that I wonder how so many people miss it. Human rights isn't stopping consenting adults from getting married.

NativeBoy:
I do advocate that gay persons be treated with dignity and respect but I do not hesitate to state that homosexuality is a sin.

Out of curiosity, how should witches be treated? Has it occurred to you that treating homosexuals with dignity and respect includes respecting their rights to get married?

NativeBoy:
As the world approaches moral relativism, good and bad, right and wrong will have no meaning. Aftee all, the same arguments offered for homosexuality also justify incest. God help us.

Right and wrong already have no meaning according to Christianity. How do the arguments offered for homosexuality justify incest given the fact that heterosexuality is supported?

NativeBoy: The arguments being used to support homosexuality are essentially erroneous. And it is a great shame to compare the gay-rights movement to the civil rights movement. It really shows the lies many have bought into. There is no similarity if you understand what the civil rights movement was about. The greatest of which is that because the western world is scientifically more advanced than we Africans, it also means they are morally/ethically superior and that we ought to mimic their every move. This is a notion I keep seeing here on NL and we must be careful of it. It is colonial mentality. Yes, we as Africans can learn the concept of human rights from the west, but it must be tempered with common sense. Human rights isn't the same as doing whatever you want just because you have a certain disposition.

I do advocate that gay persons be treated with dignity and respect but I do not hesitate to state that homosexuality is a sin.

As the world approaches moral relativism, good and bad, right and wrong will have no meaning. Aftee all, the same arguments offered for homosexuality also justify incest. God help us.

"I do advocate that gay persons be treated with dignity and respect".
Does this mean you are okay for homosexuals to live peacefully together as a couple and are recognized by the state as such? Or does that mean put them in a cage but at least give them food and don't spit on them?

I think anyone is free to condemn it and consider it a sin and raise your kids with that mindset. I completely support your right to do that. But imagine a world where everyone imposed their version of morality on others. We would have to ban pork for all because some have decided it is unclean. For me the deciding point is the line at which real harm is caused to another (not pseudo-harm like being offended by having to raise your kids in a world where others are eating pork). Not whether I like it or not. And for homosexuality there is no such harm and that is the basis by which I defend it (and other topics such as prostitution). Native boy's fairy book does not get to dictate this for everybody.

Incest is an equally highly debated topic. Here there is a very high potential for real harm (severe birth defects for any offspring and a great potential for abuse of someone over which you have authority and you are meant to protect). Homosexuality is completely victimless. For me this is the fundamental distinction which separates one debate over the other. Some argue it is not victimless but I am yet to be convinced by any such arguments. "The world will become extinct" is a classic nonstarter.

Redlyn: In many countries in Africa homosexuals are locked up actually.

No one is arguing for a deniel of rights to anyone due to being homosexual.

Redlyn: Someone else's gay union does not prevent you from educating your kids as you wish. There are many people living lifestyles we disapprove of. You simply limit as much as possible your interaction with these people. You don't have to like it, but you should tolerate it as the world is diverse and we are only discussing about 2 adults loving each other.

Not true. Once the state sanctions homosexuality, it will be promulgated as good and proper by the state and it's affiliates.

So for example. In schools, homosex will be taught as a natural, healthy and in all ways equal to normal sex. It will be included in all spheres of school curricula and taught to vulnerable children

For example, as a baker, I sell bread, pastries doughnuts to anyone. However, if I decline to bale a cake celebrating a gay union, I can be prosecuted. What of my individual rights and freedoms? my personal choices?

That is the real aim of the push for "gay marriage". Legitimacy and forced acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle with silence or sanctions for dissenters. There is ample evidence for this.

Redlyn: Replace homosexuality with interracial lifestyle in your post and the arguments were exactly the same, no regards to someone else's quality of life. The world is going in one direction and that is more and more state recognition of gay relationships (either civil union or marriage) by the countries who care about improving everyone's quality of life over the various religious agendas of the majority. I feel quite certain this discussion will go the way of may others of its kind and become history.

Totally different. One is about race, the other about behaviour. One is about rights, the other about morality. One is about genetic immutibility,the other about behavioural choices. You simply cannot sell legitimising homosex on it's own merits. As it has none. Piggy backing off real rights struggles is repugnant.

Nope. Like the no-fault divorce and unquestioned-abortion issues. It will run and run. Too many know it is simply wrong.Be that for religious, moral or practical reasons. The consequences will become very clear. Maybe not instantly, but we will surely see them.


TV

Redlyn: Does this mean you are okay for homosexuals to live peacefully together as a couple and are recognized by the state as such?

Private behaviour is one thing. State endorsement is another. What for? Why?

Redlyn: I think anyone is free to condemn it and consider it a sin and raise your kids with that mindset. I completely support your right to do that. But imagine a world where everyone imposed their version of morality on others.

That's is exactly the issue here. State endorsement of homosexuality forces it on everyone regardless. Another of your self-evident and self defeating points.

Redlyn: Homosexuality is completely victimless. For me this is the fundamental distinction which separates one debate over the other. Some argue it is not victimless but I am yet to be convinced by any such arguments. "The world will become extinct" is a classic nonstarter.

Lie, lie, lie.

Those that indulge in it are victims - of the degradation and pathologies that ensue

Those that are enticed into it are victims - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380551/pdf/amjph00515-0051.pdf (search HIV)
- http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/age/youth/

There are societal costs that are bourne by all- an active gay lifestyle cuts anything from 7 - 20 years off life expectancy. The clinical/health costs are staggering.

The lifestyle is a lie, the love is fraudulent and all defenses of it are lies.

TV

TV01: Private behaviour is one thing. State endorsement is another. What for? Why?

I suggest you research why people want to be legally married so this is not such a mystery for you.
It is not endorsement but recognition that they are a unit. There are some rules that protect one from taking advantage of the other for instance or improve the quality of their life as a couple. Why do you think non-breeding heteros want to marry. By allowing a satanist church to be registered is not endorsement or promotion of the church either. Its recognition of their right to exist and conduct business like any other despite your moral stance on their business.

TV01:
Those that indulge in it are victims - of the degradation and pathologies that ensue

Opinion.
I will have you know many hetero couples commit sodomy. If I could be bothered I would find the statistics.
What degradation have female homos experienced.

TV01:
Those that are enticed into it are victims - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380551/pdf/amjph00515-0051.pdf (search HIV) - http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/age/youth/

HIV is not transmitted through hetero sex in your world. The issue is unprotected promiscuous sex. Not gay sex.

TV01:
There are societal costs that are bourne by all- an active gay lifestyle cuts anything from 7 - 20 years off life expectancy. The clinical/health costs are staggering.

Fail. Fabrication. See above answer.

To summarize: More bullshit.
Its disgusting, I agree, immoral to a lot of people, but that not the basis I use to determine if it should be allowed or not.
Its a wrap, its a wrap

thehomer:

What are the erroneous arguments? Actually, the similarities are glaringly obvious that I wonder how so many people miss it. Human rights isn't stopping consenting adults from getting married.



Out of curiosity, how should witches be treated? Has it occurred to you that treating homosexuals with dignity and respect includes respecting their rights to get married?



Right and wrong already have no meaning according to Christianity. How do the arguments offered for homosexuality justify incest given the fact that heterosexuality is supported?

1. One of the erroneous arguments is equating lifestyle with the the struggle to seen as human. Is anyone saying homosexuals aren't human? No. But black people were viewed as sub-human, three-fourths human to be exact. As such they could not have the rights of "full" humans. They can't use the same bathroom as whites, can't go to school, etc. Even after the Emancipation Proclamation, this idea still permeated society. This isn't the same climate the homosexuals find themselves in. Ask yourself this question: did the black man have to fight to be viewed as a human in Africa? Or the Asian in Asia? No. You have human rights simply by being a human and by others recognizing you as such. Now is marriage? Marriage is an institution that by its definition exists to bring the opposite sexes together for the purpose of procreation and child nurturing. For every child a father and mother. This is what the marriage institution is. Please read up on anthropology and sociology if you don't believe me. This argument about marriage being a private personal relationship between two people is a new one that has just become popular and cool to say. It suffers from many flaws and isn't accurate anthropologically or sociologically.

2. How should witches be treated? Well, it depends on the actions of the witch. Treating homosexuals with respect and dignity in no way means that they can marry since implicit in the definition of the marriage institution is the standard of opposite sexes coming together to procreate and raise offspring. The marriage institution is blind to lifestyle choices/orientation.

3. I really don't know how you concluded that there is no good or bad in Christianity. You'll have to explain that further. If the definition is allowed to be changed, then nothing stops me from marrying my sister(s), etc. After all i'm in a personal and private relationship with them. Biologically and sociologically, it is an error. And what if we agreed to not bear children?

Redlyn:

"I do advocate that gay persons be treated with dignity and respect".
Does this mean you are okay for homosexuals to live peacefully together as a couple and are recognized by the state as such? Or does that mean put them in a cage but at least give them food and don't spit on them?

I think anyone is free to condemn it and consider it a sin and raise your kids with that mindset. I completely support your right to do that. But imagine a world where everyone imposed their version of morality on others. We would have to ban pork for all because some have decided it is unclean. For me the deciding point is the line at which real harm is caused to another (not pseudo-harm like being offended by having to raise your kids in a world where others are eating pork). Not whether I like it or not. And for homosexuality there is no such harm and that is the basis by which I defend it (and other topics such as prostitution). Native boy's fairy book does not get to dictate this for everybody.

Incest is an equally highly debated topic. Here there is a very high potential for real harm (severe birth defects for any offspring and a great potential for abuse of someone over which you have authority and you are meant to protect). Homosexuality is completely victimless. For me this is the fundamental distinction which separates one debate over the other. Some argue it is not victimless but I am yet to be convinced by any such arguments. "The world will become extinct" is a classic nonstarter.

Where's the harm? The harm comes from understanding that same-sex marriage doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists along-side other institutions. But the real threat is that permitting same-sex marriage contributes to the deinstitutionalization of marriage which essentially weakens the role of fatherhood as necessary for a child's well-being and also then removes barriers to other potential marriage arrangements. For example, what if a bisexual person wants to marry a man and a woman and then children get involved. Who are the parents of that child? What happens in the case of divorce? There are many issues to think about that operate in tandem with ssm.