₦airaland Forum

TV01: ...just #1 na? Not a single answer. Just evasiveness, whinging and ad hominem. Prison girlfriend applicant. Rightly beach slapped !


TV

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

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

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

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

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

Gay people are, gayness isn't. QED !

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TV

Divepen: Bros...
It is because people do not know how to say sorry that they claim there is no
God..
Sinc i was five i had been search proofs there is God and that paganism was suppose to be the real thing..
So one day i took the bible and rwad said i will do somethings that these people did and if it worked there was God...and it did worked..i tried phylosophy it was a shamble..
Then i saw y people hate God was because they hate correction and proud

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

TV01: I said that the voice of the religious is every bit as valid as any other in a democracy. I did not prescribe a theocratic state. Scarecrow grin!

If "homosexuality" is right and good and proper, it follows that it has every right to be celebrated as any other legitimate lifestyle/sexuall expression.

In one breath you claim rights for sodomites, in another you deny them for legitimate minorities in a democratic setting?

TV01: However old or new a descriptive word is, is not the point. If a language construct changes the essence of a thing, we need to ask why. Coining the word "homosexual" and as a contradistinction to heterosexual, suggests there are two types of human being? It's a contrivance and a lie. We only have male/female. To accept otherwise is to accept that a peadophile or polygamist is a "different type" also, as opposed to the same with different desires or inclinations. To normalise the deviancy called sodomy, they have to de-construct and reconstruct language.

TV01: Any human that engages in carpentry will use their hands though, not so? Unless of course they don't have any. All humans (bar outliers) can procreate and all do so in only one way. NO rights are being infringed on keeping marriage as it is. Contrary to what some incredulously believe, marriage was not instituted to infringe anyones rights and not based on what one likes to do with their members, but the real and required outcome of procreative coupling.

intimate design and functionality are clear. Desire is an amalgam of a number of factors, but where its manifestation is at odds with design and functionality, then there is obviously something amiss.

TV01: I believe I have talked this point to exhaustion. Procreation in principle even if not in practice gives us the essence of marriage and anchors it's societal utility. Even if not in practice, it remains the ideal setting and kids can be adopted. Even if not in practice, it re-enforces the notion. It works perfectly and at minimal cost to and with minimal intervention by society.

Sodomy is all about sex. There are lots of same couple relationships - two brothers or sisters, very good/close friends etc. - who could claim exactly the same arrangement as homosexuals - just without the physical intimacy. We do not say they should be married. Any arrangement they wish to make can be contracted privately. It requires no state intervention as it has little if any societal benefit.

TV01: Let me start from the end. No, I don't think that I have or should have more rights than a "gay person", Neither do I think that just because a person practices a certain type of intimate behaviour, he/she should be ascribed a set of rights over and above my rights or generic human rights.

And I laugh at the hypocrisy that says rights should be ascribed to "gays" on the basis of their proclivities, but not to others on the basis of theirs; to wit polygamists, zoophiliacs, paedophiles etc.

There are in truth only human rights, applicable to all. I would make exceptions for the vulnerable, i.e. children, the disabled, but other than that no "special or protected interests". The whole notion of gay rights is simply a contrivance to impose the perversion.

And the point is consistently overlooked, that whatever the legalities or definition, there are some who will always count sodomy as as abominable, deviant, degrading, immoral or simply disordered. You cannot re-define or legislate away issues of morality, which is what is being attempted here.

TV01: It does not fall at all, let alone flat. Neither has your rebuttal actually said anything. If something is re-defined in such a way that it loses it's essence, it's not being simply re-defined, it's being destroyed. A re-definition should not vary anything that is fundamental to what a thing is in essence, otherwise it ceases to be, or is rendered useless.

So far example "adulthood", being mentally and physically able to engage as an adult is it's essence, being impossible before puberty. If we move the adulthood bar to a pre-pubertal age, we render the term useless.

Re-defining marriage to include a pair that are 1. not opposite sex, 2. cannot procreate in principle or in practice means it is no longer marriage as we have historically and anthropologically understood it. It becomes something else. And for everyone. To make it work for "gays", it ceases to work for anyone. Rights? No, it's about redefining the immoral as moral.

The concepts of adultery and consummation have also to be stripped out of marriage' essence, as both are simply nonsensical in a same-sex pairing.

And from a canonical Christian perspective, whether you redefine (marriage), or recreate (civil unions), sin remains sin.

TV01: 1. An arrangement where two people who just "want to spend the rest of their lives together", needs no legal codification or societal endorsement. If that's all it was, we would not have evolved anything even like marriage. We - being society - take an interest in this type of arrangement solely due to the procreative possibility. That's the whole point.

2. Even if there are no offspring - by design or default - the principle holds, an opposite sex pairing is the basis for procreation and the best setting for nurturing children.

3. Orphaned or abandoned/unwanted kids would be best served by placing them with a male/female pairing in every which way. We should encourage and if expedient incentivise this. Neither bad opposite couples or demoniosing them, makes a case for same-sex ones.

4. You may ask whatever you please, it changes the basis of this discussion not a wit. Two fathers or two mothers in lieu of an opposite sex parent in not "normal".

thehomer: I wonder why he suddenly decided to deactivate his account. Maybe he's become uncomfortable.

Logicboy03: Guy, you are pointless.

1) You made a silly claim and now, you are trying to escape. Who told you that nigerian gays are not interested in getting married? Are they somehow different fro the other gays in the world? Please, stop remixing and accept your mistake

Logicboy03: 2) No one is forcing churches to wed gays. The last time I checked, there are churches and secular organisations that even do it gleefully

okeyxyz: I don't think the issue here is about denying anybody their rights. Rather it is a question of re-defining marriage. In this case, secular matters are subject to redefinitions at all times, so if marriage is redefined to mean the legal union of two or more adults regardless of sexuality, then that would be the marriage that the law recognizes. I stress that this is a legal marriage, not a christian(I speak as a christian) marriage, so let it not be that somebody goes to court to try and force the honoring/celebration of homosexual marriages in churches or any activity pertaining to church doctrine. A church of course being the voluntary association of believers of the christian doctrine in this case.

Logicboy03: What is this guy saying? That gay nigerians do not want to get married? Have you asked one of them before?


Another rubbish is the claim that sexuality should b basesd on religion! Peple existed and had s.ex before religion. It is a very wrong idea to use religion to dictate sexuality- which religion and which interpretation or sect of religion?

TV01: Davidlyan hello, hope you are well. I was so sure that you were away "wifing" and would return with testimony. How far?

@All, I'm going to pivot my input off this point made by DL;



Firstly we should ask what is marriage? And secondly what constitutes a right, or at least this particular one?

Simply put, marriage is and has always been the commitment between a man and a woman. It was never ever predicated on one's "sexual orientation" - whatever that is claimed to be, or however you "self-identify".

TV01: "Homosexuals are not denied the same right as any other person - the right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Anthropologically, there would be no need for marriage if children - the natural outcome - were not in view. To extend "marriage" as we know it to homosexuals, we have to change what marriage is. It becomes merely the validation of desire between adults (which as has been pointed out is hypocrisy by Western nations as Polygamy is consensual, but they are not clamouring for that - yet?). We don't need to enshrine that in law or institutionalise it. If that was all marriage represented, it simply wouldn't have come into existence.

It also denies children the right to be raised by their biological parents, which is codified by the UN. Rights jam rights?

TV01: Firstly here, true faith colours and motivates everything one does, to divorce one's faith from ones politics, is to divorce oneself from said faith. Please take stock here. And the Christian worldview has as much right to inform public policy as any other.

Your last point is contradictory. If homosexuals have the right to marriage and kids, surely they have the right to ram it down throats exactly the same way heterosexuals do. This testifies to conflict in your position?

TV01: Now to close. The terms "gay", "homosexual", "heterosexual" are pretty much fallacious as currently used. Gay as we all know is an usurped word. Homosexual and heterosexual are neologisms, coined barely a century (or maybe 2 ago).

TV01: There are not two distinct species of human being i.e. homosexual and heterosexual. Functionally all humans - with the exception of a few outlying and tragic instances, are functionally the same, the only distinction being male or female. The real distinction is those who practice normal unitive/procreative sex, as obvious and evidenced by function and outcome and those who practice a deviant form which possesses neither of those qualities or outcome. It is rightly called sodomy.

Further it has been shown that this "practice", is not biologically pre-determined (any more than any other sexual deviancy). Regardless of that fact, indulging in sodomy is a choice.

TV01: Marriage has a definite purpose. Varying it to validate deviant sexual practice is deleterious, through whatever perspective one views it. In regards to my earlier poser of rights jam rights, it's not. It's really adult desires trumping childrens right.

No rights are being denied anyone, what is being sought is endorsement of deviant behaviour - by legally codifying and enforcing a gutted form of marriage - and ultimately silencing of any dissenting voices.

Please take heed, while you are busy divorcing your faith and politics, they will try and forcibly separate you from your faith.

Merry x-mas


TV

iamSi: Of course you need religion to be acceptable to God... May you shld read your bible well that s if You even believe in it cos if you dont believe in a religion then I dont think the bible is for you...

Well as for the religious leaders... Future will refine them all... Real or Fake we all cant tell ...because you have millionss of followers dont mean u r a manof God either... I have a seen a monk smoking and I have seen a well respected father having 5 kids for different mothers . So what ?

Know your bible and that alone and prayer will make u know the right religion

doubleDx: Human arrogance!!! Everything is myth, myth, myth..... yet your science cannot explain how advanced mathematics was used (with so much precision) in constructing some ancient structures! I bet those pyramids your science & archaeology failed to explain how they were built by ancient cave men are myths too... Smdh!

Our assumptions and arrogance is why we believe life started through evolution and that we are the "only" civilization in the universe! We see everything from religious books written thousands of years before science as mere myths...Smdh!

Take it or leave it, my BIBLE doesn't LIE...Everything written therein is TRUE and NOT some Canaanland mythology/stories!

Solaj: If you are a real born again Christian, you should talk more about hell to sinners and unbelievers. Be a zealous soul winner for Jesus Christ. Numerous souls are ending up in hell daily. Let us depopulate hell. Heaven must be populated with numerous saved souls. That is the greatest desire of Jesus Christ. Shalom.

VillageBoi: Is this LOTR? Errrrmmmm... NO! So what if it's the same director? It's still a borefest.

speedyboi: As in; the first one is the worst thing to happen to 'Lord of the Rings' Movie series. Nobody can make me go see this! The hobbit 1 was such a disappointment

VillageBoi: Oh well each to their own. To me it was a borefest just like the first one and won't be any different from the third.

papparatzzi2013: You must either be new on NL or a passive member over time.

The gulf has been widened a lot over the years. Be rest assured, most people are not like that in real life. To some, is fun and it is a way of learning one or two things from both sides.

I am currently under ban by Afam, I careless though. If the moDs are really interested in the peace, they should create a thread for such.