Sagamite:

That is the problem when issues are complex and laymen are trying to understand or contribute to it. They are easily misled.

The whole foundation of gay "rights" is based on misinformation in my opinion. How can someone say it is a "right" to marry whoever you want to marry and we can not apply or moral belief to people's freedom but yet sees no problem with restricting their freedom on the number they want to marry.

People would never understand because it is way too complex for their brains and they have been brainwashed they are wonderful frontline progressives when they give their lame arguments.

They whole argument for homosexuality is based on selective rules but yet they complain about selective rules, even though the latter rules make more sense than the former they are proposing.

I will wait for Kay 17 to answer my questions though.

I think you would wait for a long time for me to give you an answer I'm not in a position to give.

Tayo-D:
@Sagamite,

I absolutely agree with you. That is why I mentioned in starting this debate that we need to make a clear distinction between what is a right and what is a privilege. Getting a marriage license from the State is a privilege not a right! Since marriage must be defined and licenses issued when the conditions are met, "marriage" as defined by the State must always necessarily exclude some people and be prejudicial to others who do not meet that criteria. The State cannot give rights but it can give privileges. If everyone understands this point, then this argument about discrimination on gays will be mute.

The State doesn't have full discretion over the issuance of marriage certificates/licences, its role is merely that of registration/regularization.

Just like Trade Unions, passport issuance, school registration, church registration/licences, land registrations/due processes, access to justice, etc.

@Kay_17,

Yoir insistence that cultural views and trend of the moment should dictate human rights is dangerous. Women and blacks suffered under such systems.

You keep mistaking what is a right with what is a privilege. Slavery was not trampling on people's privileges but their rights.

In most these EU countries that do so, an exemption is often made to excuse religious rituals.

Under no circumstances must the State allow an institutional trampling of rights. It doesn't matter if it is a religious institution.

Reform is not always chaotic but liberating.

This sounds good but I will request you provide examples.

I didn't mean failed marriage, but what you feel about the institution of marriage is about.

In taking Social Studies classes in Naija, we were taught that the Nuclear Family is the smallest unit of the society. In other words, the building blocks of the society is the nuclear family. It therefore makes sense for the society to provide a special recognition to this unit because it depends on it for its long-term sustenance. That in my secular opinion is what marriage is all about.

Now given that this is all about the long-term viability of the society, I do not see why the privilege of a marriage license should be bestowed on a relationship that does not foster the perpetuation of the society. As someone pointed out earlier in this discussion, gay sex or marriage is a biological deadened. Biologically, that relationship is a failure because it does not provide anything towards the creation of the next generation of citizens. Why should the state then confer on this relationship a special status when we know that a widespread practice of such relationship is detrimental to the well-being of the society?

@Kay_17,

The State doesn't have full discretion over the issuance of marriage certificates/licences, its role is merely that of registration/regularization. Just like Trade Unions, passport issuance, school registration, church registration/licences, land registrations/due processes, access to justice, etc.

You are here making my point exactly. Traditional marriages in Nigeria and even some religious marriages allow polygamy. As far as I know however, the State does not recognize the multiple marriages. People can get married all they want, but asking the State to issue licenses to them is conditional on meeting the definition of the State. Gay marriage does not meet the definition of the State and therefore not eligible for the State's license and privileges that come with that union.

Remember the analogy I gave earlier about the association of Doctors, Nurses and Herbalists? The State recognizes the two former but not the later. The State has a right to do that based on what it thinks best. What the State cannot do is say that Herbalists cannot form an association because that will be trampling on their rights.

Examples of reforms? Recognition of civil rights of women and blacks.

First you haven't been able to show why a marriage is a privilege from the State. It can't arbitrarily withhold marriage certs. The substance of marriage doesn't flow from it, thus its role is restricted to rubberstamping.

I'm not denying that a family is not important to a society, but society shouldn't conclude that non child breeding relationship are against its interest. Gay marriages could use their resources both time and money to raise neglected, orphaned kids. In a time where overpopulation and declining resources is a major issue, more numbers isn't a priority.

@Kay_17,

Examples of reforms? Recognition of civil rights of women and blacks.

I didn't ask for examples of reforms. I mentioned earlier that chaos would ensue from expanding the definition of marriage. You made it sound as if that is not the case. What I request is what reform doesn't bring about chaos? Do you know how much chaos accompanied the civil rights movement?

First you haven't been able to show why a marriage is a privilege from the State. It can't arbitrarily withhold marriage certs. The substance of marriage doesn't flow from it, thus its role is restricted to rubberstamping.

In other words, you are saying that the State must also rubber-stamp polygamous relationships! Is that so?

I'm not denying that a family is not important to a society, but society shouldn't conclude that non child breeding relationship are against its interest. Gay marriages could use their resources both time and money to raise neglected, orphaned kids. In a time where overpopulation and declining resources is a major issue, more numbers isn't a priority.

If more numbers isn't a priority, then why are the same liberals calling for amnesty and basically open borders? But gays can still use their time and material resources to still help neglected and orphaned kids without having to get married. No be so?

Tayo-D:
@Kay_17,

I didn't ask for examples of reforms. I mentioned earlier that chaos would ensue from expanding the definition of marriage. You made it sound as if that is not the case. What I request is what reform doesn't bring about chaos? Do you know how much chaos accompanied the civil rights movement?

In other words, you are saying that the State must also rubber-stamp polygamous relationships! Is that so?

but polygamous marriages are accepted in Nigeria!!

tayo d: If more numbers isn't a priority, then why are the same liberals calling for amnesty and basically open borders? But gays can still use their time and material resources to still help neglected and orphaned kids without having to get married. No be so?

Maybe human rights to dignity and life?!

Yea, that ONE option for gays. Marriage is another

@Kay_17,

but polygamous marriages are accepted in Nigeria!!

Traditionally yes, but not the State. The Nigerian State does not permit polygamy.

Maybe human rights to dignity and life?!

The State's priority and allegiance is to its citizens, not the citizens of another nation.

Yea, that ONE option for gays. Marriage is another

For gay couples, marriage is nothing but an avenue to indoctrinate kids. They can help those kids by helping to strengthen heterosexual homes and not take advantage of the kids for their own self-interests.

Tayo-D:
@Kay_17,

Traditionally yes, but not the State. The Nigerian State does not permit polygamy.

Good example from you. Customary marriages don't get issued marriage certs/licences, yet they have as much legal effect as a statutory one in inheritance, legitmacy, for adoption purposes, criminial law etc. . Why is that? Because its the agreement between the parties that forms the relationship and duties/rights within it! NOT on government whims.

tayo d: The State's priority and allegiance is to its citizens, not the citizens of another nation.

Human rights is universally recognized.

tayo d: For gay couples, marriage is nothing but an avenue to indoctrinate kids. They can help those kids by helping to strengthen heterosexual homes and not take advantage of the kids for their own self-interests.

You are sneaking in your assumptions. The general assumption is everybody goes into marriage for their individual happiness.

Kay 17:

I think you would wait for a long time for me to give you an answer I'm not in a position to give.

So basically you don't have an opinion of how Obama would position himself on polygamy?

Secondly, you cannot tell me a SINGLE nation that does not use moral views to formulate laws?

So why do you keep on arguing then?

Sagamite:

So basically you don't have an opinion of how Obama would position himself on polygamy?

Secondly, you cannot tell me a SINGLE nation that does not use moral views to formulate laws?

So why do you keep on arguing then?

For the first question: Yes

If states decide to give morals a higher priority than personal freedoms and the Constitution, then it becomes tyrannical, and acts in violation and without authority against the Constitution!

Most human rights are not built on morals like women's rights

Kay 17:

For the first question: Yes

If states decide to give morals a higher priority than personal freedoms and the Constitution, then it becomes tyrannical, and acts in violation and without authority against the Constitution!

Most human rights are not built on morals like women's rights

Amsorry!

I am struggling to see how this answers my question that you having been dodging for a while.

What you just did was ramble about a divergent opinion like I have cautioned you guys not to do:

Sagamite:
When I give an argument, if anybody wants me to debate with them, I expect them to consume the logic.

CONSUME IT! Don't read it and vomit "I no go carry last" arguments. Think about the LOGIC! Consume it. That is, let it go through your head, don't sit your arse down and be thinking "what am I going to say next so it does not look like if I have lost". DON'T WASTE MY TIME!

Can you please structure your post to answer the question so I can give it an appropraite and insightful response.

Answer the questions, then feel free to append a ramble to the answers.

I have made it clear to you that I don't know!! I'm not an Obama partisan! I felt his opinion on gay marriage was in accordance with the secular constitution!!

The topic was on the justification on gay marriages, not Obama innate secrets!!

@kay_17,

Good example from you. Customary marriages don't get issued marriage certs/licences, yet they have as much legal effect as a statutory one in inheritance, legitmacy, for adoption purposes, criminial law etc. Why is that? Because its the agreement between the parties that forms the relationship and duties/rights within it! NOT on government whims.

Not only are you proving my point here, but you are also giving more ammunition to Sagamite.

1. You talk about agreement between the parties. This is basic and everyone has a right to freely associate. This agreement by the parties is based on their morals like Sagamite explained. I will not agree to marry another woman when I am still married to my wife. It is against my moral code.

2. Customary marriages are valid as far as that community is concerned. That validity does not necessarily carry over into another custom. For instance, polyandry is an aceptable custom in some parts of india. That marraige, though recognized by that custom does not carry over to other customs in India talkless of Nigeria.

3. Going by the above, it is clear that marriages can take any form that it pleases the parties, but it does not mean they have a right to a marriage licence by the State. For instance, there are Somalis here in the US who are married to more than one wife in keeping with their Islamic faith. The State does not recognize that relationship but their community does. They are not asking for the State to issue them licenses for those marriages because it does not meet the state requirements. Is their civil rights being trampled upon because of this? Please answer the question.

Human rights is universally recognized.

But there is nothing like human right to a state-issued marriage licence, or is there?

You are sneaking in your assumptions. The general assumption is everybody goes into marriage for their individual happiness.

If we accept your assumption, why then should we be forced to issue licenses to people who through their own volition enter into a relationship?There are millions of people living together for the long term but have no State-isued marriage licenses. How does that detract from the relationship?

Kay 17: I have made it clear to you that I don't know!! I'm not an Obama partisan! I felt his opinion on gay marriage was in accordance with the secular constitution!!

The topic was on the justification on gay marriages, not Obama innate secrets!!

No.

Surely you are sensible enough to be able to judge if Obama would be willing to stand up in public for polygamy?

Secondly, your argument on the topic is that societies/nations are wrong for using morals or cultural views of the moment to dictate human rights is dangerous. Now I asked you which countries you know that does not use moral or cultural views to dictate human rights or make laws. You are dodging that question miserably. Is it really that dangerous to use cultural views to set laws? Or is your argument just weak? Or you are trying to fool people with lame arguments like majority of the pro-gay argument does?

Kay 17:
Human rights is universally recognized.

Gay activities is not human rights, and definitely not universally recognized.

Tayo-D:
@kay_17,

Not only are you proving my point here, but you are also giving more ammunition to Sagamite.

1. You talk about agreement between the parties. This is basic and everyone has a right to freely associate. This agreement by the parties is based on their morals like Sagamite explained. I will not agree to marry another woman when I am still married to my wife. It is against my moral code.

2. Customary marriages are valid as far as that community is concerned. That validity does not necessarily carry over into another custom. For instance, polyandry is an aceptable custom in some parts of india. That marraige, though recognized by that custom does not carry over to other customs in India talkless of Nigeria.

3. Going by the above, it is clear that marriages can take any form that it pleases the parties, but it does not mean they have a right to a marriage licence by the State. For instance, there are Somalis here in the US who are married to more than one wife in keeping with their Islamic faith. The State does not recognize that relationship but their community does. They are not asking for the State to issue them licenses for those marriages because it does not meet the state requirements. Is their civil rights being trampled upon because of this? Please answer the question.

This wasn't your prior position, which was that marriage was the preserve of the State, consequently marriages without State approval are not marriages in effect.

Individuals make their decisions on account of so many reasons, moral consideration could be one. However that's not in issue. Morality of a community doesn't have superiority over human rights.

Polygamy is a right of a man upon securing the consents of the wives, and the State recognizes it as a right to association in Nigeria. As to a woman having many husbands, I feel it shares the same attributes with polygamy, BUT few men would want to share a wife despite having a right to do so.

tayo d: But there is nothing like human right to a state-issued marriage licence, or is there?

If we accept your assumption, why then should we be forced to issue licenses to people who through their own volition enter into a relationship?There are millions of people living together for the long term but have no State-isued marriage licenses. How does that detract from the relationship?

Who are the "we" in this context?

Kay 17:

This wasn't your prior position, which was that marriage was the preserve of the State, consequently marriages without State approval are not marriages in effect.

Individuals make their decisions on account of so many reasons, moral consideration could be one. However that's not in issue. Morality of a community doesn't have superiority over human rights.

Polygamy is a right of a man upon securing the consents of the wives, and the State recognizes it as a right to association in Nigeria. As to a woman having many husbands, I feel it shares the same attributes with polygamy, BUT few men would want to share a wife despite having a right to do so.

Who are the "we" in this context?

Is the human rights of Somalis being trampled upon by the US goverenment because their multiple marriages are not recognised? Is the US not using morality to trample over their human rights? Is it right that there marriage (between consenting adults) is not recognised by the State?

Sagamite:

No.

Surely you are sensible enough to be able to judge if Obama would be willing to stand up in public for polygamy?

Secondly, your argument on the topic is that societies/nations are wrong for using morals or cultural views of the moment to dictate human rights is dangerous. Now I asked you which countries you know that does not use moral or cultural views to dictate human rights or make laws. You are dodging that question miserably. Is it really that dangerous to use cultural views to set laws? Or is your argument just weak? Or you are trying to fool people with lame arguments like majority of the pro-gay argument does?

Gay activities is not human rights, and definitely not universally recognized.

Like traffic laws?!!

Laws are sometimes made to cultural taste BUT human rights laws and the constitution prevail over all other laws. If a law with a moral basis is being made and its contrary to human rights or constitution, its loses effect.

For example, inheritance in most nigerian societies are unfavourable to women, which is contrary to their rights against discrimination and inequality. So they are set aside.

Kay 17:

Like traffic laws?!!

Laws are sometimes made to cultural taste BUT human rights laws and the constitution prevail over all other laws. If a law with a moral basis is being made and its contrary to human rights or constitution, its loses effect.

For example, inheritance in most nigerian societies are unfavourable to women, which is contrary to their rights against discrimination and inequality. So they are set aside.

You still have not responded to my request.

Name a country that does not use cultural or moral views to formulate laws.

Kai!

Then explain to me how gay marriage is a human right but polygamy is not.

Then explain to me why divorce laws are unfavourable to men in so-called "advanced" nations. Is that also contrary to their rights against discrimination and inequality?

Did you read what I posted at all??!! I made it clear that the Constitution will necessarily supercede over moral laws!! Check out Roe vs Wade, check out Nigerian case laws on the validity of customs over inheritance!

And you are not unequivocal and clear, make your stand and stick with it. Focus on the gay marriage, I never mentioned polygamy wasn't a right of association.

Kay 17: Did you read what I posted at all??!! I made it clear that the Constitution will necessarily supercede over moral laws!! Check out Roe vs Wade, check out Nigerian case laws on the validity of customs over inheritance!

And you are not unequivocal and clear, make your stand and stick with it. Focus on the gay marriage, I never mentioned polygamy wasn't a right of association.

I am making my stand! Ia m rubbishing your argument that building laws based on morality is dangerous!

EVERY SOCIETY DOES! THAT IS PART OF CREATING SANE SOCIETIES, NOT A DANGER!

That is EQUIVOCAL and CLEAR!

You know it but you are dodging the question because you know that and are so closed-minded and want to stick with you poor arguments.

Homosexual activities are not human rights, hence susceptible to morality laws.

Constitutions are normally influenced by and constructed based on MORAL laws!

@Kay_17,

This wasn't your prior position, which was that marriage was the preserve of the State, consequently marriages without State approval are not marriages in effect.

I don't know if you are deliberately misquoting me to win an argument or that you have basically misunderstood my position all along. I have said times without number that freedom of association is a right. What I do not subscribe to is saying that any association has a right to demand a license from the State. Remember my analogy with the Doctors and Herbalists?

Individuals make their decisions on account of so many reasons, moral consideration could be one. However that's not in issue. Morality of a community doesn't have superiority over human rights.

I agree. Where we differ is you ascribing the issuance of a marriage licencse to rights! There is right to freely associate and sleep with whoemever or as many people as you want as long as it is consentual. What you don't have a right to is insist that the State grant you marriage status by issuing you a license when you do not meet the set criteria.

Polygamy is a right of a man upon securing the consents of the wives, and the State recognizes it as a right to association in Nigeria. As to a woman having many husbands, I feel it shares the same attributes with polygamy, BUT few men would want to share a wife despite having a right to do so.

The State does not recognize polygamy in Nigeria. I know people who wanted to remarry but had to divorce their spouses to do so. Traditionally, polygamy is accepted but not by law. Naija aside, are you saying that the US is trampling on the rights of polygamists by not issuing them licences?

Tayo-D:
@Kay_17,

I don't know if you are deliberately misquoting me to win an argument or that you have basically misunderstood my position all along. I have said times without number that freedom of association is a right. What I do not subscribe to is saying that any association has a right to demand a license from the State. Remember my analogy with the Doctors and Herbalists?

We are in agreement as to the freedom to associate is a right. But the dispute is on the role of State marriage licences. But you HAD mentioned customary polygamous marriages which are legal enforceable, which misplaces marriage as a privilege from the State.

tayo d: I agree. Where we differ is you ascribing the issuance of a marriage licencse to rights! There is right to freely associate and sleep with whoemever or as many people as you want as long as it is consentual. What you don't have a right to is insist that the State grant you marriage status by issuing you a license when you do not meet the set criteria

State licences/certs is a formalization/regularization process which protects the other rights of others without damaging yours. Trade Union have a similar regularization/formalization process, but still preserves their rights to associate.

All contracts are instantly enforceable by law, same as marriage.

tayo d: The State does not recognize polygamy in Nigeria. I know people who wanted to remarry but had to divorce their spouses to do so. Traditionally, polygamy is accepted but not by law. Naija aside, are you saying that the US is trampling on the rights of polygamists by not issuing them licences?

Polygamy like every contract is enforceable. Most ppl marry under Marriage Act, which regularises marriage for those with the intention to marry one spouse. Also most ppl don't understand the law and confuse it as the only legitimate form of Marriage.

Sagamite:

I am making my stand! Ia m rubbishing your argument that building laws based on morality is dangerous!

EVERY SOCIETY DOES! THAT IS PART OF CREATING SANE SOCIETIES, NOT A DANGER!

That is EQUIVOCAL and CLEAR!

You know it but you are dodging the question because you know that and are so closed-minded and want to stick with you poor arguments.

Homosexual activities are not human rights, hence susceptible to morality laws.

Constitutions are normally influenced by and constructed based on MORAL laws!

Pls what moral rule is responsible for abortions, contraceptives, the freedom is to have sex with whoever u want

Kay 17:

Pls what moral rule is responsible for abortions, contraceptives, the freedom is to have sex with whoever u want

And your point is?

Sagamite:

And your point is?

Just curious if there is any such moral!

Kay 17:

Just curious if there is any such moral!

You just want to come with "what am I going to say next so it does not look like if I have lost"?

Societies come up with moral rule they find appropraite for it. What don't you understand about that? You want to waste my time?

Sagamite:

You just want to come with "what am I going to say next so it does not look like if I have lost"?

Societies come up with moral rule they find appropraite for it. What don't you understand about that? You want to waste my time?

I have never disagreed with anyone that morality is a product of society, but that personal freedom and human rights will always override morals. Morals lack a legitimacy unlike laws. Morals in Nigeria are a fragmented reflection of the motley of cultural differences and variations in the country.

However you raised a claim that the constitution is of a moral basis since its not possible for a country to make laws without moral content. Its left to you prove it by bringing examples!!

Kay 17: I have never disagreed with anyone that morality is a product of society, but that personal freedom and human rights will always override morals. Morals lack a legitimacy unlike laws. Morals in Nigeria are a fragmented reflection of the motley of cultural differences and variations in the country.

However you raised a claim that the constitution is of a moral basis since its not possible for a country to make laws without moral content. Its left to you prove it by bringing examples!!

Gay marriage is not personal freedom or human rights. If it is why is polygamy not? How come morals is used to ban polygamy?

Does the constitution give you a right to walk na[i]k[/i]ed on the streets? Why is the right to bear arms in the US constitution but not in other nations? Is that not based on their culture and morals?

You want to waste my time.

Sagamite:

Gay marriage is not personal freedom or human rights. If it is why is polygamy not? How come morals is used to ban polygamy?

Does the constitution give you a right to walk na[i]k[/i]ed on the streets? Why is the right to bear arms in the US constitution but not in other nations? Is that not based on their culture and morals?

You want to waste my time.

Which is it, gay marriage is not a consequence of personal freedom/willingness and right to associate with same sex OR that personal freedoms are not entrenched in the Constitution??!!

You must be CLEAR!

Kay 17:
Which is it, gay marriage is not a consequence of personal freedom/willingness and right to associate with same sex OR that personal freedoms are not entrenched in the Constitution??!!

You must be CLEAR!

Both!

Now answer my questions and stop dodging.

Sagamite:

Both!

Now answer my questions and stop dodging.

Good start.

The right to life, freedom of thought, privacy, liberty, property, association, religion don't sum up to personal freedom??

On the second gay rights are rooted to freedom of thought, privacy, personal liberty and religion.

Kay 17:

Good start.

The right to life, freedom of thought, privacy, liberty, property, association, religion don't sum up to personal freedom??

On the second gay rights are rooted to freedom of thought, privacy, personal liberty and religion.

Can you fcking answer my questions and stop the moronic "what am I going to say next so it does not look like if I have lost"? DON'T WASTE MY TIME!