₦airaland Forum

bawomolo:
why does my analogy make you puke. isn't it the same thing. there are millions of homo's and you come to that conclusion using 4 examples. my argument is that homosexuals prefer to get married in city hall and not the church.

Crime rates are ginormous among blacks due to poverty being higher for blacks and education levels being lower. But you're comparing that to the legal gap exploited by these people because of the passing of this state-law.

US supreme court would never force the church to sanction gay marriages

Even if the US. supreme court doesn't, the state supreme court can do so, unless the US. supreme court intervenes.  That's why your "separation of religion and politics" propaganda will not work, in so far as there's a law tying legal benefits to churches.

the push for the proposition came from the mormon and african-american dominated churches. without them, the proposition would have filled. i find it funny prop-4 failed though

It doesn't matter where the push for the proposition came from.  It has been passed, period.  The gay community and their advocates are being sore losers.  You could also argue that another reason this proposition will not get backing from the african-american community is because of the ignorance of those hurling slurs at people of color for the passing of the measure.  They need to understand that violence, stealing signs, and insults will not get people on their side.

but why should the majority dominate the affairs of the minority?

Because the majority have reason to be concerned about the affairs of the minority when the actions of the minority have drastic effects on the majority.

this will never happen considering people tend to be bisexual/heterosexual rather than homosexual.

That's the same argument white people used in the past, but look, there goes Obama.

[quote author=sleek_p link=topic=192241.msg3057665#msg3057665 date=1226160212]@H2O2
Why are you so hung up on this issue? Homosexual marriage shouldn't stir up so much emotion from anyone unless they're fighting some "secret urges" themselves.[/quote]Joh gbenu soun jare.  What secret urges are you fighting?  You proponents of faggotry never cease to amuse me.  So anyone that speaks out against homosexuality is now a "homophobe" or is fighting "secret urges"? mumu.

I for one don't give a monkey weather two adults are allowed to marry or not.

Why not 3 adults or even 4 adults?

I bet you in 10 to 20yrs most states will legalize gay marriage. Your arguments were the same as those in Europe when it was debated in Europe, but there's no notable increase in homosexuality since the law was passed in Europe.

The discussion is not about the homosexual population increasing if gay marriage is legalized, it is about the use of the term in association with gay unions.

If gays can marry, polygamists should be allowed to marry too.

[quote author=*Morenike link=topic=192191.msg3059345#msg3059345 date=1226180748]lmao. . . . so it's a crime to give a few fashion suggestions? like pulling her dress down?

I don't care if she's Jamaican at this point o, just owndering if she can pull the dress down
Sorry, I just realized your TJ is actually your bunched up Agbada, Nothing there. Sorry, my iro and buba no dey for una[/quote]How is she not pulling her dress down any different from you busting out your chest cleavage?

Me nko, I like to do

dreeldee:
if we're to take religion and morality out of it (objective). Considering the issue of race in the country, Obama's recent victory at the election is one bold step taken by Americans. Simultaneously, the ban on gay marriage seems to be conflicting with that (human right issue). Sentiments aside, how can you give the black man the right he has always been fighting for hundreds of years before now, and at the same time deny rights to some people? ironic i would say.



I hate gays though, i really do

[quote author=j-girl link=topic=192241.msg3049754#msg3049754 date=1226027945]I heard about this and in as much as I am against gay lifestyle, I still think they should be allowed to get married whenever and however. I don't think that there should be any ban on gay marriage in the registry. We already see them making out on streets and in other public places. It's better to allow them do that legally.[/quote]People's rights to choose their partner is respected in California, dreeldee & jgirl.  Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman.  We all believe in equal rights for everyone, including gay partners - that's why the state gives them the opportunity to become domestic partners.  "gay marriage" makes as much sense as "dry ocean" .   There is no federal constitutional clause/right to "equality based on sexual orientation". If the state wants to give them that right, it is the state's decision, but it should not be forced upon the state.  Gays in Cali have the same rights as str8s in cali, with the exception that their union is not called a "marriage", pretty much. I am happy that they have all those rights and it's because they deserve those rights.  If the gays insist, let them term their union "garriage". There's a difference between heterosexual union and homosexual union.  I'm sure we all agree with that fact.

bawomolo:
four examples and you conclude it's a pattern, think about it. it's high crime rate in the black community a pattern that blacks are thugs??

Even one example is enough. Four examples is too much to show you that these people have used this so called "right" to cause an infringement on the rights of others. What part of that are you finding it hard to comprehend? And your analogy makes me want to puke. It is a legal loophole that can-and-will-be-exploited. . . . do you understand me better now?

please find more links. most of the marriages were peformed at CITY COUNCIL. get that right. if thousands of homosexuals were suing the church for the right to marry there then that would be worrisome. people voted for the proposition because of their personal beliefs and not because of homosexuals trying to get married in the church

Your logic is backwards. Keep turning a blind eye to it until it affects the majority? Why don't we turn a blind eye on gays until they become the majority? How come you're arguing that "gays" who are the minority now should be given the same privileges that "heterosexuals" who are the majority have? And your last statement is very unpolished. Did you try to do some research to find out that there are many Californians who voted for the ban that are not affiliated with any religious groups? No need to get all paranoid against religion anytime society votes to uphold moral conducts they believe are true.

Lol, really? That's pretty funny. But that is one out of many. This is already a pattern of homosexuals oppressing the church, and how come it doesn't count in your book? The law will not exclude it just because it's not " systematic. Is it because the're not all doing it? Once the law passed they saw it as their legal right to be married where-ever. . . that includes the church. I will find more links for you in due time . .

I have answered that question at least twice on this very thread. It will only take you about a minute or two to find the posts that address them bawo.

how is your religious freedom affected by married homosexuals? am confused here. has queer guys forced your church into the underground??

It does not need to be forced into the underground before it is affected.
This is why I don't like explaining things to blondes. . . it flies over their heads each time.

the bible belt is a region in the united states known for social conservatism. read about it.

You were here calling me a bigot for being intolerant, now meargues that you're intolerant of social conservatists. Lol

this is absurd considering lots of homosexuals are religious.

Your responses make me laugh. I never said homosexuals are "not religious". I told you to consider the rights being forced from others. Lol you seriously crack me up.

where did you get this front. homos usually demand marriage from city council and not the church. are you sure you haven't been eating a lot of bible belt sandwiches lately??

My foot! Have you been following this thread at all, or do you just love keeping your fingers busy?
Besides, it's not like there's anything wrong with eating bible belt sandwiches is there? The bible not a welcome discussion around you? Talk about being intolerant.

sorry to burst your bubble, but religion should be separated from state because of reasons such as this.

Continue fooling yourself. It still doesn't take away the constitutional right to religious freedom.

i think people tolerant of homosexuality wouldn't be reluctant to support homosexual marriage. again it's obvious that the black vote led to the resolution passing. whites supported homosexual marriage while latino's were split.

The votes reveal that you thought wrong.

have i ever criticized tolerance for religion. you can worship if your cat if you want to. none of my business. don't divert the thread because u have nothing to support your argument.

The argument has been supported from head to tail through out this thread.  People have been arguing with facts, but all you have raised are questions. Your questions have been answered numerous times before.  You did not criticize religion but you keep shying away from the religious rights that gays will usurp from others.

a nigerian answering a question with a question. what a surprise!!!!!! you made the claim first, now support it with some myth. are homosexuals the majority in the netherlands or spain

It's not peculiar to Nigerians alone.  Caucasians know about it too, are you surprised about that? Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence my dear.  You brought up the argument of spain and norway in a fuzzy attempt to divert the focus of the thread.  Homosexuals have forced their rights on pastors who did not want to wed them. Full stop.  That was the argument.  Stop playing with semantics.  It really is good to ask questions about things you don't understand, y'know?   I heard that's how you increase your knowledge

is Christianity a loving religion if it doesn't support equal rights for minorities. think about that.

Christianity is a loving religion. Historically, gays have not been very respectful of that religion. Forcing the church to partake in, and promote, their sin is where the issue lies. We can and do accept sinners - gays included, we also know that it's a violation of God's love to promote sin.

bawomolo:
homosexuals are a minority and would never be a majority. you would be tolerant of homos if you truly valued life. bigot.

You are bitter and you argue with little reason.  Homosexuality is tolerated in California, homosexual marriage isn't. What part of that don't you get ? I still stand corrected. Read the post again and again.  It's the truth in it that makes you sound so bitter.

have people been forced into homosexuality in the netherlands or mexico city. homosexual feelings can't be forced into you. your bigotry is disgusting

Your inclination of hating opinions that differ from yours is even more disgusting.  Have you ever thought that people have religious rights in this country? Oops, I forgot you don't care about religion, right?  Does that mean it should be meaningless to those who do?

Where's your proof that people haven't been forced into homosexuality in said places?

bawomolo:
this is a stupid statement considering that the population of humans is at most 10% homosexuals. more bisexuals and heterosexuals in the mix.  an argument could actually be made that homosexuals help curb overpopulation of the earth.

Yours is an even more unwise statement, considering that heterosexual (natural) intercourse is responsible for you being here today.  Just confess that you do not value human evolution and life. Heterosexuality is responsible for procreation , I stand corrected.

you are right. you know those homos would go around raping and indoctrination people when it's made a law

You don't need to misconstrue the post, or draw it out of context as you have the tendency/penchant of doing. The fact remains that people will be forced to sin against their will.  That is a fact you have not discredited.

[quote author=n-guage link=topic=192241.msg3049496#msg3049496 date=1226020365]justify stopping them from doing what they want to do?[/quote]Isn't that an easy question to tackle, albeit in a silly manner? I can easily tell you like I did earlier that this is for the selfish social gain of a group of people, society has nothing to gain from this union, and we have wasted too much of our taxpapyers' money on this mess. The sexual perversity of two people who like it up the buttocks should remain in their bedroom. I don't want my cousin who likes having sex with himself while looking in a mirror to be legally allowed to marry himself. Marriage is not a intimacy gadget.

Actually I don't eat turkey, but thanks for your concern.

Olodo, I was addressing about your allegations that I'm getting too emotional. I'm eating turkey, smiling and attaching very little personal emotions to the topic.

Ndipe:
Which was illegal. Now, if a Nigerian is elected to rule Britain, that would be legal.

Good, we're saying the same thing.

milknhoney:
@H2O2

Don't you think that you are getting a little too worked up over the subject?

I mean relax, high blood pressure is no joke.

Look at you. Eating turkey while typing does not cause high blood pressure abeg.

[quote author=n-guage link=topic=192241.msg3049464#msg3049464 date=1226019755]Whoever doesn't support gay marraiges shouldn't attend or partake in one, chikena![/quote]Olodo, it is not that simple.

"You you you you, " you love focusing on you. You are being very selfish and self-centered. It is not about you. Just because you are not being taught doesn't mean others aren't being taught. Get off your high horse.
This is why I dislike discussions with some kids: they ignore the discussion at hand and focus on attacking the person behind the thoughts.  The issue is still there, will remain there, and will continue to be discussed - like it or not.  I didn't not post the links because I couldn't find anything . . . I didn't because I wanted you to educate yourself.

But since you're lazy and want me to do the work for you, here:

http://web1.userinstinct.com/23363311-gay-sue-pastor.htm
http://www.bahamasb2b.com/news/wmview.php?ArtID=9086
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marm6.htm
www.jonesbahamas.com/pdf.php?a=10099
http://mpinkeyes./2007/07/09/lesbians-to-sue-church-for-discrimination/

Ndipe:
Well, if our constitution does not permit it, then it is illegal. Now, if their constitution approves of it, then it is ok. Or, is there anything wrong for a black to rule Britain? They ruled us pre-colonial times, took our people as slaves, even though it is illegal.

This is not pre-colonial times. Of course it is illegal. Nigeria didn't "put them there", THEY forced their way there. There's a difference.

@Chiogo,

Where do I even begin to debunk this junk you just posted?

I don't consider discussions held in a civil, respectable manner "snapping", and maybe that's why I didn't attend the same school as you _{thank God}.

When the principles taught to my kids at school interfere with the values I am teaching them at home, that is the law usurping my obligation to raise my kids with the conducts I feel are most proper.

As for gays, priests, and weddings, I'm sure it doesn't hurt your finger to google things you have no knowledge of.

lucabrasi:
nothing wrong but the fact that there is a total decay in the system,what we need in nigeria is not just an obama but a castro as well where exactly are we going to start from?at least obama and any nigerian in britain can be assured of a working and solid political system which is non existent i nigeria

Ndipe:
And who ruled us pre-colonial times?

This is now. Does the constitution allow it? If not, then no.

[quote author=*Morenike link=topic=192241.msg3049368#msg3049368 date=1226016168]Maybe if you were "educated" enough to ask your "ebi", you would not need to ask me that.

Sure you support am, cover up, abi? moni ko pkele[/quote]You are making me very tired of gracing you with my attention. What is so coherent about the post in quote above? You either love babbling, or you just love being around me. Getting unnecessarily defensive over being asked your reason for spelling 'pele' as 'pkele', to the extent that you bring family into it? I don't need to cover up anything. I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, but unlike you I am not hateful and intolerant against those who are. Continue hiding that message of hate in your post. Just don't do it in a public setting among educated people - it would make you look like a foolish little girl.

chiogo:
HAHAHAHAHA. . . . Girl, you are so mean!! You're wrong though.

Criticism is an acceptable form of correction, ridicule is a playtoy for kids. Try to contribute something thought-provoking, please.

Lol. If you were sparsely educated or bothered to read the posts you would see that I support the ban on gay marriage, with good reasons too. Stop digressing from topic.

Is "pele" spelled "pkele" in your language?

ibkaye:
Either way somebody will be forced to do or not do something. In the priests' case, I agree, they should not be forced to wed gay couples considering it is against their faith but aren't there any gay pastors'/priests'? As bizaree as it may sound, I'm sure there is atleast one that would be willing to wed the homo's, problem solved. It's just that these homo's have a right to get married if they want, abi it is their life and they aren't hurting anybody in the process, as much as I disagree with sexuality, people have rights and like milkhoney stated, it is not for us to try and set guidelines on.  

My whole post flew over your head. The gays have used the same washed up argument to argue against these exclusionary measures that you think solves the problem just because "some" priests will be willing to do.  The fact remains, if it is made a law, people will be forced to sin against their will, including those who don't want to wed them.  And what makes you think they're not hurting anybody in the process?  Heterosexuality leads to procreation, homosexuality will eventually put a halt to human evolution.  This is hurtful because it disturbs the natural order of things.  One of the strongest reasons, if not the strongest reason the state grants benefits to heterosexual couples is because they can procreate.

ibkaye:
As much as I am totally against homosexuality etc, I think that this is definately an infringement on the rights of some Americans, different people have different views, no matter how weird, nasty, freakish these views are to you, so I guess that is what they call 'freedom'

What do you mean you think? Where are the justifications for your thoughts? You can see that "it is an infringement on the rights of some Americans", but you don't see how approving gay marriage would also be an infringement on the rights of some priests and pastors to practice their faith? Didn't you hear of cases where priests are being forced to wed gay couples in church because gay marriage is a law? Tell me you don't think that's a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

That's a human rights issue. We don't hate gay people. The constitution of the united states tolerates gay people too.

Isn't that the problem with democracy in America.  The belief that the interpretation of the constitution is superior to the will of the people[majority] - sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad.  Extreme liberalism is going to take the US of A to hell.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=178839.msg3048767#msg3048767 date=1226001984]I can understand how you feel about these things; but that would seem to make the point that people are guilty of the same on either side of the divide. How? Just as some agnostics and non-theists have compounded the debate between the supernatural and the natural, so some theists who are ill-informed have only made things worse for themselves by throwing science overboard. It's sad when even some Christians do this - eg., when they say that "science" is a lie and not to be believed; whereas, they misunderstand that science asks a totally different set of questions than we should be asking in investigating the supernatural realities of our world.[/quote]Which is the point I'm hoping the agnostics and non-theists would realize, too, that both sides of the argument are equally acceptable. I've heard it re-hashed time and again that faith-based logic is inadmissible in their "superior intellectual" discussions of nature, but I don't understand how they can fail so horribly to see the invalidity of that statement. They are just as incorrigible --maybe even more incorrigible- as those they're ridiculing.

Well, I appreciate your disagreeing with me on that point; just that I know firsthand some of these folks who have been asking such questions without necessarily seeking to bash religion. Some would even be daring to be that honest in saying that, though the things we present to them are intriguing and actually convincing, they simply do not want to believe. However, for those who bash religion, we know they are not helping themselves - just as some with a religious inclination have not helped the dialogue by reacting in just the same manner to bash "science" or even anyone's worldview. What I think could be more helpful is for people to engage openly and respectably on issues, minus the over-reaction that is all too evident both ways. What do you think?

That I agree with. We don't always have to see eye to eye, but we can respect one another.

Okay. Let me just add a small observation: if we would draw the respect of anyone, perhaps we would only be able to do so by presenting an enabling atmosphere for our convictions to be taken seriously. It takes time to gain respect; and if we "demand" it forcibly, it may be counter-productive. All the same, I appreciate your points.
Regards.

General advise.

4 Play:
To the extent that heterosexual couples are given tax breaks,it's driven by the objective of strengthening marriages. There is no such similar desire to strengthen homosexual relationships.

Exactly. Millions of dollars in taxpayers money wasted for the selfish social gain of a certain group of people.

I will try not to make the argument that marriage is sacrosanct, because if I do, people will come back at me with their statistics on the prevalence of divorce.   Gamine, there's something called domestic partnership - it affords gays basically the same privileges married couples have.  Gays have the same rights as do other Americans.  They can marry a woman and I can marry a woman; it's just that they choose not to.  What they want is an extension of rights and it won't stop with them.  If this law passes, what's stopping my narcissistic [fictional] self-loving cousin who is attracted to himself from marrying himself?

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=178839.msg3046992#msg3046992 date=1225979828]Well, to be fair, we can't assume that all atheists are morons or buffoons. There are certain things that happen in our world which even some of us Christians (speaking especially for myself) simply have no clue. I think that some atheists are seriously seeking to understand these phenomena as well, even though the questions they ask are of somewhat a different nature. All they are asking is this (IMHO): is there no other way one could understand these phenomena other than in supernatural terms? Yes, we as Christians should speak up - when need be; and we should listen as well. Most people may not take our answers, but the rejection does not change our convictions about the reality of these supernatural phenomena.

Regards. [/quote]That's not the point I'm driving at. I wouldn't lump them all under one category because that would be hypocritical of me as well - guess I should have specifically stated "some" .  The problem is with agnostics, non-theists, etc who believe their opinions are superior to those of Christian bible thumpers.  We are all granted the rights to express ourselves in forms that include religion; they choose science-fiction and others choose their faiths, so whose is superior to whose?  And I don't completely agree with your assertion that all they're after are "other ways" to understand these phenomena.  How else can you explain the obsession with bashing religion? I know you can't claim they won't understand these phenomena without chastising other people's beliefs.  Yes, we should speak up, listen, but we reserve the right to be respected and have our opinions heard, too.  Alas, you're right, their convictions do not change the reality of what the people believe in.

I love it how when a Christian speaks up, suddenly these irrational buffoons [or atheists - whatever you call them] say they are being judgemental, bigoted, and close-minded. Claiming christians are uneducated, yet their ideas are hailed intellectually superior and logical. Morons!

What are your thoughts on this? Is this a step in the right direction, or is it an infringement on the rights of some Americans?