The gays are here again! Let me guess, you can hide behind nairaland but you cant organise a march to tell the public what you believe in! Looking for evidence that gay sex is dangerous to health, just google the dangers of gay sex. How come HIV was first diagonised among gay men? Are you unaware that Anal cancer while a rarity among heterosexual couples is a common denominator among gays. What of the rare form of cancer Kaposi Sarcoma that gays donated to the world through their insane practices? Are you so easily decieved by the west? If homosexuality is okay what then is wrong with incest between two consenting adults? Pls stop being silly! The Bible says all proponents of homosexuality are people with oblique reprobate minds! Thats your problem, your minds have suffered a major disconnect! America is the great LovePeddler spoken about in the book of Revelation. Stop following them blindly.

dinachi:

The man-loving-men are here again! Let me guess, you can hide behind nairaland but you cant organise a march to tell the public what you believe in! Looking for evidence that man-lover sex is dangerous to health, just google the dangers of man-lover sex. How come HIV was first diagonised among man-lover men? Are you unaware that BehindBased cancer while a rarity among heterosexual couples is a common denominator among man-loving-men. What of the rare form of cancer Kaposi Sarcoma that man-loving-men donated to the world through their insane practices? Are you so easily decieved by the west? If homosexuality is okay what then is wrong with Inbreeding between two consenting adults? Pls stop being silly! The Bible says all proponents of homosexuality are people with oblique reprobate minds! Thats your problem, your minds have suffered a major disconnect! America is the great LovePeddler spoken about in the book of Revelation. Stop following them blindly.

Seriously, don't take that guy, Cine serious abeg, kid is just excited about the rubbish he has been reading from his 900 pages book. His own source of evidence is the book. Imagine him asking me to provide him with evidence that homosexualism is a normal human phenomenon and calls it a myth cos it has been debunked by psycoanalyst, that I should provide him with evidence that one stands an extremely high chance of contracting HIV aids through homosexual sex than than the normal man-woman sex. Obviously, the kid is just running off with the nonsense that he reads from just a book. He is not worthy of any serious response from me that is why I ve deliberately chosen to ignore his gibberish logic cos they aint original neither are they his own anyway.

debosky:

The crux of law making is ONLY general acceptability after personal human rights are protected.

Not neccessarily true, there is no how every aspect of a law in practice can be generally accepted and at thesame time protect every aspect of "personal human rights"-this has been one of my earlier points since I joined the debate of this thread. No law is absolute in itself, it guanrantees you certain rights so long as you don't exercise it beyond the limits of what can be covered by the law. What you call your rights might be an infringement on somebody else's right or may not have fulfilled the basis upon which the law or right was conferred.
That is why I have consistently maintained that there is no provision in the constitution that confers anyone rights to perform un-natural acts or its promotion and propagation in any form.

debosky:

If we are 'conforming' to human anatomy as you claim, then the laws should also outlaw 'bl[i]o[/i]wjobs as the mouth is meant for eating and speaking not so? Why haven't the senate done so?

Now this is a very elementary way to look at it or even make any sound comparison coz in the first place, there is no group of people with potential to form unions, associations, symposiums, public lectures on that basis. Besides, nobody is stopping anybody from engaging in any kind of s'exual pervasion in the privacy of his house or home but the moment it is made public, it becomes a punishable offense.

debosky:


Social vices like drug addiction are prohibited because of the proven nature of their negative harm by nature. This is in no sense comparable to homo-sex-uality in in general, except in cases where other's rights are violated - e.g. ra-pe or mo-lestation. In this sense it is no different to hetero-sex-uality.

this line of argument is greatly flawed on so many counts as it ignores the fact that social vices are not just prohibited by virtue of their negetive nature alone but a mix of that and other set values and moral standards of a society . For instance, where lies the negetive nature in in'cestuous cohabitation between two consenting adults? I understand in some clime it is practised while in another it is a crime, this again gives credence to my earlier comments about the provision and fulfilment of a law or right.

debosky:

The issue here is very simple - if the government wanted to prohibit g-aay marriage, the way to go about it is very clear as done in the US - define marriage as STRICTLY between a man and a woman and make any other form of marriage illegal.

Why should the law overreach itself by declaring any g-ay club (Dunno what the express definition of a g-ay club is) or association is prohibited. What gives you the right to prohibit the association of bona-fide Nigerian citizens?

that is exactly what the senators are trying to right now- the institution of marriage will continue to be between a man and a woman and you entitled to the fundamental human rights of association so far it is fulfilled that it is a naural act. The fundamental human right is for human beings whose basis for the rights pressuposes heterosexuals rights that are deemed natural by the set values and acceptable norms of the society. This cab not be ignored no matter how hard anyone tries to want to overlook them, there is no such things as a law that is entirely borne out of seculiarism.

Because I feel very passionate about the issue of homosexuals and the agender by their proponents and supporters, I shall, in a series of posts paste excerpts from a well documented and unbiased research made by an America family counselor on the Slipery Slope of same sex marriage.
I advise that people should keep an open mind and refrain from making comments if they do not understand topic of discussion. Everyone deserves to get all sides of this over-laboured argument of homosexuality and not a one-sided view.
Relax and Enjoy.

A MAN AND HIS HORSE
In what some call a denial of a basic civil right, a Missouri man has been told he may not marry his long-term companion. Although his situation is unique, the logic of his argument is remarkably similar to that employed by advocates of ho'mosexual marriage. The man claims that the essential elements of marriage-love and commitment-are indeed present:"She's gorgeous. She's sweet. She's loving. I'm very proud of her. . . Deep down, way down, I'd love to have children with her." Why is the state of Missouri, as well as the federal government, displaying such heartlessness in denying the holy bonds of wedlock to this man and his would-be "wife"? It seems the state of Missouri is not prepared to indulge a man who waxes eloquently about his love for a 22-year-old mare( female Horse) named Pixel.
THE THREAT to MARRIAGE
The Missouri man and ho'mosexual "marriage" proponents categorically reject the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Instead, the sole criterion for marriage becomes the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment." But once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex--even non-human "partners." To those who object to comparing gay marriage to widely-rejected sexual preferences, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very suggestion that two men or two women could "marry" was itself greeted with scorn. Of course, media stories on same-sex marriage rarely address the fact that redefining marriage logically leads to the Missouri man and his mare. Instead, media reports typically focus instead on ho'mosexual couples who resemble the stereotypical ideal of a married couple. Ignored in such reports is social science research indicating that such idealized "families" are utterly atypical among homosexuals. In this document we will show the following:
1. Gay marriage threatens the institutions of marriage and the family.
2. Same-sex relationships are not the equivalent of traditional marriage
3. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue 4. Americans overwhelmingly reject gay marriage
5. Gay marriage is not a moral alternative to traditional marriage.
6. Homosexuality is rightly viewed as unnatural.

THE "POLYAMORY" MOVEMENT " Sean has a wife. He also has a girlfriend. His girlfriend has another boyfriend. That boyfriend is dating Sean's wife." description of "polyamory" relationship The movement to redefine marriage has found full expression in what is variously called "polyfidelity" or "polyamory," which seeks to replace traditional marriage with a bewildering array of sexual combinations between various groups of individuals. "Polyamory" is derived from Greek and Latin roots, and is loosely translated "many loves." Polyamorists reject the "myth" of monogamy and claim to practice "harmonious love and intimacy between multiple poly partners."
Stanley Kurtz describes the "bewildering variety of sexual combinations. There are triads of one woman and two men; heterosexual group marriages; groups in which some or all members are bisexual; lesbian groups, and so forth."
The polyamory movement took its inspiration from Robert Heinlein's 1961 sci- fi novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, in which sexual possessiveness (as in marital exclusivity) is portrayed as an evil leading to societal ills such as murder and war. The book helped spawn a number of ill-fated sexual communes, such as San Francisco's Kerista community, in which members had sexual relations with each other according to a rotating schedule. ANTI-MARRIAGE ACTIVSTS
The Kerista commune collapsed in 1992, but the polyamory movement has taken hold in academia where, according to First Things, its proponents "are now so influential, if not dominant, in the academic field of marriage and family law." Scholars enamored with polyamory argue in favor of "a social revolution that would replace traditional marriage and family law." Kurtz concurs that the "gradual transition from gay marriage to state-sanctioned polyamory, and the eventual abolition of marriage itself, is now the most influential paradigm within academic family law." One prominent advocate of polyamory, David Chambers, professor of law at the University of Michigan, argues: "By ceasing to conceive of marriage as a partnership composed of one person of each sex, the state may become more receptive to units of three or more."

THE FRAT HOUSE CONCEPT OF "FAMILY" This radical definition of marriage gives rise to bizarre conceptions of family that include virtually any relationship or social group. In 1990, a San Francisco task force on family policy led by l'esbian activist Roberta Achtenberg defined the family as a "unit of interdependent and interacting persons, related together over time by strong social and emotional bonds and/or by ties of marriage, birth, and adoption." The "frat house with revolving bedroom doors" concept of marriage and the family poses dangers to children. Polyamory advocates pay scant attention to the dangers posed to children being raised according to this "frat house with revolving bedroom doors" concept of marriage and the family. Yet, this nebulous, free-for-all model of the family looms ahead for our society unless a bulwark is created in the form of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. The slippery slope leading to the destruction of marriage as we know it draws ever closer with the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to compel the state legislature to grant homosexual sex partners the legal status of married people. This decision has emboldened public officials in various localities to grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples, igniting a national debate on the question: What is marriage-- and where do we draw the limits on who can marry?

SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS ARE NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF MARRIAGE
A growing body of research indicates that in key respects homosexual and lesbian relationships are radically different than married couples.
-- Relationship duration:
While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression."
A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.
-- Monogamy versus promiscuity:
Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that "committed" h'omosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year.
-- Intimate partner violence:
h'omosexual and lesbian couples experience by far the highest levels of intimate partner violence compared with married couples as well as cohabiting heterosexual couples.
Lesbians, for example, suffer a much higher level of violence than do married women.
What about the Children?
In his exhaustive examination of human history, Giovanni Battista Vico (1668-1744), Professor of Rhetoric at the University of Naples, concluded that marriage between a man and a woman is an essential characteristic of civilization, and as such is the "seedbed" of society. Vico warned that chaos would ensue in the absence of strong social norms encouraging marital faithfulness and the loving care of children born to the union. Since reproduction requires a male and a female, society will always depend upon heterosexual marriage to provide the "seedbed" of future generations. The evidence indicates that homosexual or lesbian households are not a suitable environment for children. Data from the 2000 U.S. Census and other sources indicates that only a small percentage of h'omosexual households choose to raise children. One reason for this is that the raising of children is inimical to the typical h'omosexual lifestyle, which as we have seen typically involves a revolving bedroom door. With the added problem of high rates of intimate partner violence, such households constitute a dangerous and unstable environment for children. H'omosexuals and lesbians are unsuitable role models for children because of their lifestyle. Dr. Brad Hayton observes that h'omosexual households "model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. , And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good 'marital' relationship.

THE PHONY COMPARISON WITH RACE
Many black Americans are understandably offended when gay activists, who have never been relegated to the back of a bus, equate their agenda with racial discrimination. In a statement supporting traditional marriage, several black pastors wrote: "We find the gay community's attempt to tie their pursuit of special rights based on their behavior to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s abhorrent." A majority of Black Americans reject the facile comparison of sexual behavior with an immutable characteristic such as race, and disagree with the oft-heard contention by gay activists that homosexuals are "born that way." A Pew Research poll found that by an overwhelming 61 to 26 percent margin, Black Protestants believe sexual orientation can be changed.15 The same poll reported that Black Americans oppose homosexual marriage by a 60 to 28 percent margin.
GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE
Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are h'omosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all citizens--including the right to marry. However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want. A parent cannot marry their child (even if he or she is of age), two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia. Neither can gay activists appeal to a "natural rights" argument: i.e., no reasonable person would deny h'omosexuals and l'esbians their self-evident right to marry. Harry Jaffa cogently replies that such arguments actually argue against homosexual marriage: "Nature and reason tell us that a Negro is a human being, and is not to be treated like a horse or an ox or a dog, just as they tell us that a Jew is a human being, and is not to be treated as a plague-bearing bacillus. But with the very same voice, nature and reason tell us that a man is not a woman, and that sexual friendship is properly between members of opposite-sexes, not the same sex."

UPHOLDING TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE IS NOT "DISCRIMINATORY" Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally. For example, FAA and airline regulations rightly discriminate regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an airline. Those who are not trained pilots have no rightful claim to "discrimination" because they are not allowed to fly an airplane. On the other hand, discrimination would occur if properly credentialed pilots are refused hiring simply because of the color of their skin. In this case such individuals have been denied employment simply because of their race. The issue of alleged discrimination was addressed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson, when it rejected the argument that denying a same-sex couple the right to marry was the equivalent of racial discrimination. The court found: "In common sense and constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex." Similarly, in October 2003, a three-judge panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled unanimously against two homosexuals who argued in a lawsuit that marriage is a fundamental right, and that prohibiting it for same-sex couples violates constitutional protections for due process. The court found that the state's ban on homosexual marriage "rationally furthers a legitimate state interest," and thus does not discriminate against homosexuals by depriving them of their constitutional rights. The court further noted: "Recognizing a right to marry someone of the same sex would not expand the established right to marry, but would redefine the legal meaning of 'marriage.'" When gay activists and their supporters cry "discrimination!" they conveniently avoid the question of whether homosexual relationships merit being granted equality with marriage. Yet this question deserves our close examination, for the danger posed to our society by redefining marriage is no less than permitting unqualified individuals to fly airplanes.

rhymz:

Not neccessarily true, there is no how every aspect of a law in practice can be generally accepted and at thesame time protect every aspect of "personal human rights"-this has been one of my earlier points since I joined the debate of this thread. No law is absolute in itself, it guanrantees you certain rights so long as you don't exercise it beyond the limits of what can be covered by the law. What you call your rights might be an infringement on somebody else's right or may not have fulfilled the basis upon which the law or right was conferred.

Agreed. Can you point out how association of ga-ay people infringes on the right of others?

That is why I have consistently maintained that there is no provision in the constitution that confers anyone rights to perform un-natural acts or its promotion and propagation in any form.

What clause of the constitution defines 'un-natural acts' and prohibits them? If this clause does not exist, then it is merely in your imagination. What does exist is a provision for freedom of association that this law violates.

Now this is a very elementary way to look at it or even make any sound comparison coz in the first place, there is no group of people with potential to form unions, associations, symposiums, public lectures on that basis. Besides, nobody is stopping anybody from engaging in any kind of s'exual pervasion in the privacy of his house or home but the moment it is made public, it becomes a punishable offense.

This is not true - why can't the association of 'blow-job lovers' form an association for themselves? I am not really concerned about the practices as such, the issue here is prohibition of association of a group of people - something not permitted under the constitution.

Even Boko Haram's gathering, in itself, is not a crime - the crime only emanates if the purpose of gathering undermines the security and safety of the Nigerian state.

Their practice (i.e. homo-sex-uality) is not the issue here - it is the denial of their fundamental rights to form associations.

this line of argument is greatly flawed on so many counts as it ignores the fact that social vices are not just prohibited by virtue of their negetive nature alone but a mix of that and other set values and moral standards of a society . For instance, where lies the negetive nature in in'cestuous cohabitation between two consenting adults? I understand in some clime it is practised while in another it is a crime, this again gives credence to my earlier comments about the provision and fulfilment of a law or right.

Stay on point - is there a law prohibiting in'cestuous cohabitation in Nigeria? Is there a law banning the association of people considering themselves incest participants?

that is exactly what the senators are trying to right now- the institution of marriage will continue to be between a man and a woman and you entitled to the fundamental human rights of association so far it is fulfilled that it is a naural act.

What is the definition of a 'natural act'? If the constitution contains no such definition, then you are pissing in the wind my friend. If the senate want to protect the sanctity of marriage - make it ONLY applicable to a man and a woman, and punish anyone who institutes same-sex marriages. End of story.

Even if people desiring sex marriages gather in associations to campaign for it, this should not be illegal as it is their freedom of association to do so.

The fundamental human right is for human beings whose basis for the rights pressuposes heterosexuals rights that are deemed natural by the set values and acceptable norms of the society. This cab not be ignored no matter how hard anyone tries to want to overlook them, there is no such things as a law that is entirely borne out of seculiarism.

The law is not borne out of secularism, but the constitution establishes secularism - a big difference. This presupposition does not exist except in your mind, as there is no definition of what is 'natural', nor a provision specifying that only those acting in a 'natural' fashion have human rights.

What about those that consider themselves asexual or celibate? Are those people denied rights as well? Is asexual behaviour 'natural'?

This is purely a figment of your imagination that can never stand up to any scrutiny in the court of law.

Note again, I do not support same sex marriage in any form as I believe marriage is STRICTLY between a man and a woman, but any law prohibiting same sex marriage MUST NOT violate the Nigerian constitution and must SQUARELY address the issue and nothing else, i.e. no collateral damage.

Imagine if you're not gäy, but you disagree with the way the Nigerian government treats them and write your Senator about it. Under this law, you can be sent to prison just for speaking your mind.

If you open a shelter for victims of hömöphobic violence, you can be accused of running a gäy club and sent to prison.

If you belong to a gäy church or religious association, even one that advocates celibacy among its members, you can go to prison.

Under this law, gäys can't meet with other gäys to discuss their problems, they can't organize to fight for their rights, they can't even protest their mistreatment. Under this law, if a gäy person is killed, the police can declare his/her funeral an illegal assembly of man-loving-men then arrest and prosecute everyone there with your presence being the only thing needed to establish guilt. Does nigeria really want to start jailing people just for attending a funeral, or a birthday party, or a church program, or a meeting?

What is happening here is that people are letting their hatred get in the way of their common sense. How can you support a law that discriminates against a group of people, turning them into second-class citizens?

And this isn't aparthied which was based on something obvious like skin colour. In this case, anyone could be falsely accused of being gäy and have no way of proving otherwise. So if you're thinking you're safe because you're not gäy, you're decieving yourself. This bill endangers everyone's rights. And it must be stopped.

^^ Relax buddy.

the law is simple and simply stated. "We do not consider man-lover marriages to be real marriages" You're adding things to it, with an uncanny passion might I add.
The institution of marriage is a thing between a man and a woman. There must be a husband and a wife and not 2 husbands. The country for good reasons isn't going to tarnish that age-old, God originated institution by forcing it to bend to the man-lover situation.
The government is saying this: If the man-loving-men choose to live together, as they do now, it's none of our business, and WE will not consider it to be marriage in fullness and truth (because it isn't), ,

The law did not say it is illegal to be gay, as that will be a pointless law.

Instead of fighting it, the man-loving-men can come up with their own word that means marriage to them and let us rest. Maybe Garriage would suit them better.

debosky:

Agreed. Can you point out how association of ga-ay people infringes on the right of others?

Yes I can. Such association of course goes against the very reason for banning same-sex cohabitation. Let's not pretend we don't know the agenda of such associations- form lobby groups, get more vulnerable straight people to become h'omosexuals, discuss ways to further their cause- what is the sense in placing a ban on same-sex marriage only to allow them the atmosphere to flourish?? The very reason for the ban was to discourage, de-emphasize, and make it unattractive to the unsuspecting and vulnerable members of the public. The casualties the bill is trying to protect here are the vulnerable Nigerians, our family structure, belief system and moral standards.

debosky:

What clause of the constitution defines 'un-natural acts' and prohibits them? If this clause does not exist, then it is merely in your imagination. What does exist is a provision for freedom of association that this law violates.

Ok, I agree with you that it is not stated explicitly what unnatural act is. However, there is a lawful basis( which I believe is borne out of my argument of unnatural acts) to argue that any freedom of association that violates the "protection of morals" is unlawful.
Infact, there was a similar case between the austrian government and a same-sex couple that were denied legal union using the notion of "protection of morals".
This argument is full of varying interpretation that can be spun either way.

debosky:


This is not true - why can't the association of 'blow-job lovers' form an association for themselves? I am not really concerned about the practices as such, the issue here is prohibition of association of a group of people - something not permitted under the constitution.

Even Boko Haram's gathering, in itself, is not a crime - the crime only emanates if the purpose of gathering undermines the security and safety of the Nigerian state.

Their practice (i.e. homo-sex-uality) is not the issue here - it is the denial of their fundamental rights to form associations.

here again you are wrong. If it is established that such a gathering, association, meeting, rendenzvous or even a congregation of h'omosexuals is inimical and a threat not just to national security but moral value system, people's way of life and belief systems. If you are not concerned about the inimical potentials such gatherings portends, society does and it behoves on the legislator to legislate morality in general.

debosky:

Stay on point - is there a law prohibiting in'cestuous cohabitation in Nigeria? Is there a law banning the association of people considering themselves Inbreeding participants?

The law is not borne out of secularism, but the constitution establishes secularism - a big difference. This presupposition does not exist except in your mind, as there is no definition of what is 'natural', nor a provision specifying that only those acting in a 'natural' fashion have human rights.

What about those that consider themselves asexual or celibate? Are those people denied rights as well? Is asexual behaviour 'natural'?

This is purely a figment of your imagination that can never stand up to any scrutiny in the court of law.

Note again, I do not support same sex marriage in any form as I believe marriage is STRICTLY between a man and a woman, but any law prohibiting same sex marriage MUST NOT violate the Nigerian constitution and must SQUARELY address the issue and nothing else, i.e. no collateral damage.

I am not sure if there is a law that specifically addresses incest but I know it is not practiced openly for a reason. Moreover, if such association is deemed inimical of course they will get what is coming to them, I already dealt with that.
And yes, agreed the law is often said to establish secularism but in practise can you honestly believe that? Besides, who says there is no discussion of morals in secularism?

Evil Brain:

Imagine if you're not gäy, but you disagree with the way the Nigerian government treats them and write your Senator about it. Under this law, you can be sent to prison just for speaking your mind.

If you open a shelter for victims of hömöphobic violence, you can be accused of running a gäy club and sent to prison.

If you belong to a gäy church or religious association, even one that advocates celibacy among its members, you can go to prison.

Under this law, gäys can't meet with other gäys to discuss their problems, they can't organize to fight for their rights, they can't even protest their mistreatment. Under this law, if a gäy person is killed, the police can declare his/her funeral an illegal assembly of man-loving-men then arrest and prosecute everyone there with your presence being the only thing needed to establish guilt. Does nigeria really want to start jailing people just for attending a funeral, or a birthday party, or a church program, or a meeting?

What is happening here is that people are letting their hatred get in the way of their common sense. How can you support a law that discriminates against a group of people, turning them into second-class citizens?

And this isn't aparthied which was based on something obvious like skin colour. In this case, anyone could be falsely accused of being gäy and have no way of proving otherwise. So if you're thinking you're safe because you're not gäy, you're decieving yourself. This bill endangers everyone's rights. And it must be stopped.

are you painting scenerios or making attempts to misinterprete the stipulations of the bill? "Endangers everyone's right?" duh?? The only ones who feel endagered here are closet h'omosexuals, s'ex pervs and their sympathisers. If you feel very strongly about homosexuals' rights and all that emotional outburst, may be you should instead open rehabilitation centres for them so they wont have to clash with the law and feel its stings.

2buff:

^^ Relax buddy.

the law is simple and simply stated. "We do not consider man-lover marriages to be real marriages" You're adding things to it, with an uncanny passion might I add.
The institution of marriage is a thing between a man and a woman. There must be a husband and a wife and not 2 husbands. The country for good reasons isn't going to tarnish that age-old, God originated institution by forcing it to bend to the man-lover situation.
The government is saying this: If the man-loving-men choose to live together, as they do now, it's none of our business, and WE will not consider it to be marriage in fullness and truth (because it isn't), ,

The law did not say it is illegal to be man-lover, as that will be a pointless law.

Instead of fighting it, the man-loving-men can come up with their own word that means marriage to them and let us rest. Maybe Garriage would suit them better.

Clearly, you haven't read the bill and you don't know much about it. You're exactly the sort of  person I was trying to educate when I started this thread.

Let me assure you that all the examples I gave are valid. The senators wildly overreached and the bill is covered in egegrious constitutional violations. But don't take my word for it, read it yourself.

rhymz:

Yes I can. Such association of course goes against the very reason for banning same-sex cohabitation. Let's not pretend we don't know the agenda of such associations- form lobby groups, get more vulnerable straight people to become h'omosexuals, discuss ways to further their cause- what is the sense in placing a ban on same-sex marriage only to allow them the atmosphere to flourish?? The very reason for the ban was to discourage, de-emphasize, and make it unattractive to the unsuspecting and vulnerable members of the public. The casualties the bill is trying to protect here are the vulnerable Nigerians, our family structure, belief system and moral standards.

Where is the proof that ga-y gatherings have formed groups to 'convert' straights to g-ays? If you can prove a g'ay association is infringing on your rights, take them to court - there is absolutely no need for legislation.

What if the association is a gathering of g'ays seeking to become straight, or g'ays seeking to enforce the use of contraception to prevent further HIV infections? Your statement about 'allowing them to flourish' is a direct violation of the constitution - freedom of thought and association.

Ok, I agree with you that it is not stated explicitly what unnatural act is. However, there is a lawful basis( which I believe is borne out of my argument of unnatural acts) to argue that any freedom of association that violates  the  "protection of morals" is unlawful.  

Is there a provision of 'protection of morals' in the constitution of Nigeria?

Infact, there was a similar case between the austrian government and a same-sex couple that were denied legal union using the notion of "protection of morals".

Exactly - the case was dealt with in court, not by passing draconian laws.

This argument is full of varying interpretation that can be spun either way. here again you are wrong. If it is established that such a gathering, association, meeting, rendenzvous or even a congregation of h'omosexuals is inimical and a threat not just to national security but moral value system, people's way of life and belief systems. If you are not concerned about the inimical potentials such gatherings portends, society does and it behoves on the legislator to legislate morality in general.

How is an association of g'ays (for example) seeking to connect with other g'ays threatening to anyone's way of life? If a specific association can be proven to be inimical to national security, such a group should be prosecuted under national security laws, instead of making ill-thought BLANKET bans, that affects ANY type of g'ay association.

The legislature cannot legislate morality because morality is associated with belief systems in general - as the constitution does not recognise any specific religion, then the basis for legislating morality disappears.

If we want to legislate morality, we might as well also create legislation that makes disrespecting your parents a criminal offence.

I am not sure if there is a law that specifically addresses Inbreeding but I know it is not practiced openly[b] for a reason[/b]. Moreover, if such association is deemed inimical of course they will get what is coming to them, I already dealt with that.

The reason is the 'societal norms' you mentioned - these are more than sufficient to control the issue without the government seeking to legislate morality.

The government should never enact blanket bans on any associations as this can be an easy cover to rope in any association the government wants to get rid of, e.g. accusing ACN of being a g'ay party by the PDP to lock them up.

The lack of open homo'sex'uality in Nigeria is not the existence of laws, it is the deep societal abhorrence for it - there is no reason to change that in my view. Even without further legislation, so'domy is already deemed illegal in Nigeria.

And yes, agreed the law is often said to establish secularism but in practise can you honestly believe that? Besides, who says there is no discussion of morals in secularism?

It's not a matter of what I believe as such, this is a discussion of the law - when a law contradicts the requirements of a higher authority (the constitution) then it should not stand.

Morality in secularism is not based on legislation - it is based on the belief systems of a particular society and should self-regulate.

I feel I should add this little information so people that are in the habit of digressing from the main issue here by stating that h'omosexualism is not Nigeria's problem, there is no need to talk about it or whether there are reported cases of same-sex couple besieging court marriage registry and churches to make their union legal. The answer is yes that the trigger. Infact the trigger for the bill was that two gay men went to a registry somewhere in Edo State to get married and were refused. The gay partners and their organisation were said to have threatened to sue the registrar for discrimination who then alerted the authorities that there were no laws in the land specifically banning same sex marriage. Now you see why it is understandable that the Senators felt a bill against same sex marriage and their conniving associations were indeed urgent.

rhymz:

I feel I should add this little information so people that are in the habit of digressing from the main issue here by stating that h'omosexualism is not Nigeria's problem, there is no need to talk about it or whether there are reported cases of same-sex couple besieging court marriage registry and churches to make their union legal. The answer is yes that the trigger. Infact the trigger for the bill was that two man-lover men went to a registry somewhere in Edo State to get married and were refused. The man-lover partners and their organisation were said to have threatened to sue the registrar for discrimination who then alerted the authorities that there were no laws in the land specifically banning same sex marriage. Now you see why it is understandable that the Senators felt a bill against same sex marriage and their conniving associations were indeed urgent.

Names, dates, and links please. Proof or GTFO. Save your beer parlour stories for the beer parlour.

Also, the supreme court had already pronounced that gäy marriages were not valid ages ago. And even if it hadn't what is the justification for prescribing a prison sentence for writing a pro gäy rights petition to the government? Or for same-sex cohabitation? Or belonging to a man-lover association? Or participating in a peaceful demonstration?

EDIT: The supreme court ruling I referred to above is EUGENE MERIBE vs JOSHUA C. EGWU of 1976 (LPELR-SC48/75) in case anyone is interested.

Rhymz and his ilk are too blinded by religion to see what debosky and evil brain are saying, I know that once the bill is passed, some people will take the bill to court and they will win in court, leading to waste of money and time, why cant the bloody senate make a bill that prohibits same sex marriage without infringing on rights.

It would have been apt to simply deny legal recognition to same s.ex unions, but the extra step of criminalizing same s.ex activitivies is certainly wholly unconstitional in many respects and should be challenged in the courts. I have a sneaky feeling though, that the US and Britain may prevail on the President to withhold his assent.

Whilst i agree that the law over reaches fundamental constitutional rights such as freedom from discrimination and freedom of association, i cannot accept that western powers are in any position to lecture a sovereign nation on this matter: for bigamy ought not be criminal within their own systems in the same respect.

There are many se.xua.l perversions and it would be absurd to begin to prescribe jail terms for each one. That is frankly on all fours with medieval persecutory barbarism.

Deep Sight:

It would have been apt to simply deny legal recognition to same s.ex unions, but the extra step of criminalizing same s.ex activitivies is certainly wholly unconstitional in many respects and should be challenged in the courts. I have a sneaky feeling though, that the US and Britain may prevail on the President to withhold his assent.

Whilst i agree that the law over reaches fundamental constitutional rights such as freedom from discrimination and freedom of association, i cannot accept that western powers are in any position to lecture a sovereign nation on this matter: for bigamy ought not be criminal within their own systems in the same respect.

There are many se.xua.l perversions and it would be absurd to begin to prescribe jail terms for each one. That is frankly on all fours with medieval persecutory barbarism.

Thank you Deep Sight. You and I don't often see eye to eye but I'm glad you can rise above religion and stand on the side of reason.

I just want to point out that no one here is advocating bowing to the west. We are all proud Nigerians and I feel that we should be able to do what is right for our Nation without worrying about what the oyimbos think. But passing a bad law just to piss off the Americans is just as wrong, if not more so than bowing to their wishes.

And this bill is unequivocally bad.

Y'all fail to understand rymzo's point. What is the essence of denying rights to same sex couples but allowing same sex associations and clubs to thrive? Is that not the same nonsense that happened in the US, before you know it the gay associations has built a powerfull lobby to decriminalize gay marriage and in fact gain legal recognition. Your argurment is a bit like banning terrorist activities of Boko Haram but allowing them to form organisations and clubs for their members. To what end do you think such organisations will be? The senator are simply smart students of history, banning same sex marriage but allowing gay organisations is simply postponing the evil day! Pls. Lets not be silly! And I dont understand why one who does not practice homosexuality would be putting up such spirited defence for them! Gayism is against the tenets of humanity.

Evil Brain and Debosky has really impressed me. My conclusion is that its either they're lawyers or they're human rights activists. They've been able to present their facts without religious or moral sentiments.

I don't like homosexuals as a person. Infact I'd say I have a little hatred for them. But I respect them and see them as my fellow God's creation. Now I wouldn't because of my hatred for them deny them of their fundamental rights. It would be so unhuman of me.

This bill if passed into law will affect me. This is because I'm a medical personnel who works with an NGO that targets the homosexuals. What we do is to mobilise these people and encourage them to live positively by knowing their HIV status and by using condoms. We do all these because we know the homosexuals are more at risk of contracting HIV. If that bill is signed into law, I'll be guilty and sentened to 10 yrs imprisonment for my public health work! This is outrageous!!

Anyway I know that law won't see the light of the day. The courts will nullify it as it contradicts a section of our constitution.

If the senate were wise they would have stressed the definition of marriage as a union between MAN and WOMAN. They can go further to declare any wedding other than the one defined above null and void. They mustn't imprison anyone for it.

Obinoscopy:

Evil Brain and Debosky has really impressed me. My conclusion is that its either they're lawyers or they're human rights activists. They've been able to present their facts without religious or moral sentiments.

I don't like homosexuals as a person. Infact I'd say I have a little hatred for them. But I respect them and see them as my fellow God's creation. Now I wouldn't because of my hatred for them deny them of their fundamental rights. It would be so unhuman of me.

This bill if passed into law will affect me. This is because I'm a medical personnel who works with an NGO that targets the homosexuals. What we do is to mobilise these people and encourage them to live positively by knowing their HIV status and by using condoms. We do all these because we know the homosexuals are more at risk of contracting HIV. If that bill is signed into law, I'll be guilty and sentened to 10 yrs imprisonment for my public health work! This is outrageous!!

@Obinoscopy
Thanks brother. I'm not a not a lawyer BTW. I'm a doctor just like you and I have quite a few patients who have admitted being gäy to me.

Many of them are miserable, conflicted people who are torn between their religious beliefs and the feelings they can't control. More than a few have asked me whether there was any way they could be "cured". Most are too scared to tell even their closest loved ones the truth. I can go out, openly flirt with women and fornicate to my hearts content, but these guys have to suppress their urges for fear of being sacked or beaten up as if they are living in taliban ruled Afghanistan.

The last thing they need is to be oppressed by the federal government. Their lives are already hard enough.

Evil-Brain, save for his name, Makes a lot of sense
This bill makes no sense to sensible people

Why are intentionally refusing to see the wisdom of the senate? The bill does not say gay people should not be involved in organisation. Lets be clear before all these nairaland gays railroad us with their lies. The bill rather prohibits any organisation or clubs formed with the aim to support, aid or promote homosexuality. @ Obinoscopy you will not go to jail for treating homosexuals but you will be affected if you form an organisation solely dedicated to promote, aid or support homosexuals in their life style. Stop muddling issues. Unless you admit by yourself that the gay lifestyle is extremely risky healthwise and you are suggesting they should be quarantined! Unless you are seeking to weaken the senates stand as a future springboard for full legal status for gay marriage in Nigeria. Lets stop deceptively aiding what we know to be wrong! It is either you are against gay marriage or not period any buts is a tacit support!

debosky:

Where is the proof that ga-y gatherings have formed groups to 'convert' straights to g-ays? If you can prove a g'ay association is infringing on your rights, take them to court - there is absolutely no need for legislation.

What if the association is a gathering of g'ays seeking to become straight, or g'ays seeking to enforce the use of contraception to prevent further HIV infections? Your statement about 'allowing them to flourish' is a direct violation of the constitution - freedom of thought and association.

Well, unfortunately for liberals like you and evil brain(lol) pre-emptive laws do not give the time and patience for proof, especially when one can easily draw examples from what is going on in places where that is the case.

debosky:

Is there a provision of 'protection of morals' in the constitution of Nigeria?

Exactly - the case was dealt with in court, not by passing draconian laws.

Are you in anyway trying to infer that the national assembly does not have the powers to make laws. Need I remind you that: (2) The National Assembly shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Constitution.

debosky:

Exactly - the case was dealt with in court, not by passing draconian laws.

Well, that is the beauty of democracy, let the LGBT present their case when the Bill will be debated and during the public hearing at the lower house, if they fail to get the support of the Nigerian majority, may be they can then go to the court. And if they are still told in clear terms that their associations and coys are not allowed then everyone must respect it.

debosky:


How is an association of g'ays (for example) seeking to connect with other g'ays threatening to anyone's way of life? If a specific association can be proven to be inimical to national security, such a group should be prosecuted under national security laws, instead of making ill-thought BLANKET bans, that affects ANY type of g'ay association.

The legislature cannot legislate morality because morality is associated with belief systems in general - as the constitution does not recognise any specific religion, then the basis for legislating morality disappears.

If we want to legislate morality, we might as well also create legislation that makes disrespecting your parents a criminal offence.

The reason is the 'societal norms' you mentioned - these are more than sufficient to control the issue without the government seeking to legislate morality.

The government should never enact blanket bans on any associations as this can be an easy cover to rope in any association the government wants to get rid of, e.g. accusing ACN of being a g'ay party by the PDP to lock them up.

The lack of open homo'sex'uality in Nigeria is not the existence of laws, it is the deep societal abhorrence for it - there is no reason to change that in my view. Even without further legislation, so'domy is already deemed illegal in Nigeria.

It's not a matter of what I believe as such, this is a discussion of the law - when a law contradicts the requirements of a higher authority (the constitution) then it should not stand.

Morality in secularism is not based on legislation - it is based on the belief systems of a particular society and should self-regulate.

Lets all face facts. Its wrong wrong wrong.