₦airaland Forum

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!!

*sigh*

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

[quote author=Tayo-D]@Kay_17,

Traditionally yes, but not the State. The Nigerian State does not permit polygamy.[/quote]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.

I expected instanteous healing. However I could conclude that the leg was recovering already.

[quote author=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?[/quote]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

If the child was in Nigeria, worse Calabar, he would have been stoned and ppl would have believed that they ve killed the devil.

Knowledge is powerful. Praying wouldn't have helped the boy in this case.

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.

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.
[quote author=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.[/quote]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.

Sagamite: Kay 17, I am waiting for you to tell me o.

I didn't tell you that I was obama's mind or party chief or a secretary!

To the question no! And yes.

Snthnesis believes that the essential feature of God is self cause. And he is a Christian.

jmoore: Is that your own way of evading the question I asked you. That shows you will get nowhere if you had attempted with those logic of yours.

No need repeating yourself, as I said "Jesus christ has proven himself to me therefore no need for me to seek anything else."

This is not about being a skeptic, to be a skeptic is to have doubts, to have doubts means you are not certain and do not know whether it is true or possible.

I am not a skeptic of those religions you listed, this is not about doubts. I am very sure and fully convinced having no doubt about them that they lead to nowhere.
Jesus is the only way!

Since reason leads no where, I can't make sense of what you wrote. And why questions lead to answers.

[quote author=Nukleos-Shakur][color=#990000][/color] :-Xat this junction,obama is very wrong[/quote]Maybe as a conservative Christian, but as president of a multicultural secular state, it was a good move.

Sagamite: GBAM!

That is why I said somethings that are not human rights are subject to societal morality rules. Some societies would accept it. Others will not.

For example, Holland banned the killing of animals the halal way. They chose that their society does not find the act moral.

How I wish interviewers can ask Obama why polygamy is illegal, if he would support a move to make it illegal and why he would not (if he is not in support of it). How I would just love that question. Lets see his logic on civil rights and freedom. I would want to see that humiliation.

Some Germans chose this. Obama and America would not see it as freedom and civil rights:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18021714

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

In most these EU countries that do so, an exemption is often made to excuse religious rituals.
[quote author=Tayo-D]@Kay_17,

I am not quite sure about that. While the society in general does not really frown on it, I don't think you can readily marry more than one person by law. That notwithstanding, I don't see how it detracts from my points. Tell me, would polyandry also be allowed in Nigeria? Do you think it is an affront on the rights of women to be limited to only one man when men are allowed to marry more than one? Each society must define what it thinks is best for it. The US has accepted just the union of two consenting adult heterosexuals. Asking the US to expand that definition is to set chaos in motion.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but I assume the legal implications of a failed marriage vary from state to state and country to country.[/quote]Reform is not always chaotic but liberating. I didn't mean failed marriage, but what you feel about the institution of marriage is about.

[quote author=Tayo-D]@Kay_17,

Anyone qualified person that is denied a driver's license has every reason to feel aggrieved. Not so if he/she was not qualified. My 13 year old cannot feel aggrieved if denied a driver's license but my 18 year would because he is more than qualified to receive that privilege. When it comes to marriage, gay couples have no basis to feel aggrieved because they do not qualify to receive that status based on the State's established criteria.

If the agreement is the substance, then polygamy must also be recognized as long as all parties are in agreement. See why we can't redefine marriage? If we do that, then we have no moral standing to limit it at all.

Again, to obtain a marriage license is not a right. It is a privilege!!! Your rights can not impose a burden on me. While you have to freely associate with whomever you will, you have no right to demand I recognize your association.[/quote]Polygamy is allowed in Nigeria.

What your idea on the legal implication of a marriage?

remmyz: may Allah 4gv ur ignorance. If u cnt say smtin reasonable. Pls kip shut and follow d thread

Except if your God is the custodian of ignorance. Muslims do take pride that their holy book reiterates scientific truths unknown at the time it was written. Would you want to soil its name by claiming a book with human writings could develop in a womb of a woman??

And the Quran has the name of a publisher on earth! LMAO! Religion is really opium.

AlvinPlantinga: Epistemic distance does not mean Physical distance.Epistemic is relating to or involving knowledge.Epistemic distance can be translated to mean Knowledgeable Distance.Therefore when i say the fallen angels could have been created at a certain epsitemic distance i do not mean that this entails any spacio- temporal sort of distance.Therefore these angels being in "heaven physically "together with God does not in anywhere suggest that there was no Epistemic distance between them and God.



Natural evil? or you meant to say moral evil?Why didn't God just create humans who did not possess free will?Or why didn't God just create earth to be another heaven?



A God who is omnibenevolent and omniscient may have good reasons to allow some evil.It does not follow that since we do not know all the reasons for each instance of evil then god does not have sufficient good reasons as to why he fails to prevent some evil.just like a 3 month old baby does not know the reasons why he's receiving painful measles and small porks jabs, we humans have a limited amount of knowledge to fathom how an en evil act thats been allowed today, may result in Good consequences tomorrow, or 100 years from now.or 10,000 kms away.




These theological twists, are not empty.Some are, but the ones in question are profound philosophical problems, not only for theists, but to atheists as well.Since the problem of evil is not a problem for theists alone,it affects everyone.So everyone has to account for the problem of evil in his or her own worldview.



I am not saying it is logicallly impossible.I am saying it is not feasible.That is why, i proposed reading about feasible and possible world terminology.

A thing can be possible, but not feasible.for example there is no logical contradiction in claiming that there is a plate of Suya rotating around the planet Mars.It is indeed absurd, a plate of Suya rotating around mars would not be breaking any laws of physics.But how feasible is it?We all know that it is highly unlikely that there is a plate of Suya rotating on mars.

When i say that a world where, human beings are free, and truly free to chose good over evil,i.e make moral decisions,then it is highly unlikely that out of say, 5 billion people,living a lifespan of 80 years,that no one will chose an act of evil, even once in his lifetime.

therefore it is not upto God to decide which world is "actualizable" as long as he creates free beings.He may want these 5 billion people living 80 years each to not chose even 1 instance of evil, in their lifetimes, but he can not guarantee that these will happen as long as these creatures have significant free moral choices to make everyday of their lives.




and you are right.but arguments about textual meaning of scriptures usually leads to biblical exegesis.It is inevitable.


because you make the assumption that someone needs to read the bible in order to know right or wrong?

Before diving into the usefulness of Evil, God is must be Evil and imperfect, thus his creation reflects his nature.

NwaBiafra: In his mind. He thought, and it was manifested, no need for emotions and effort.
simply thought.

And if o believe that your mind, thats is made in the image of gods is nothing, you need to do deep breathing to rid your body of stress and neative thought to think straight

I have always believed the mind was more like a mirror, the reflections of reality bounces off it and sometimes in a modified figure. That a mind in a void was ineffectual.

However, since we/creation are mere thoughts, then the mind which we are conceived from would be far more complex than we are, isn't it contrary to general experience and natural order, that a grand complexity gives rise to simplicity?? That water came before hydrogen?? That only from mountains that particles are got from??

Isn't it necessary for God (complex mind) to have a simpler cause?

. . .

[quote author=Tayo-D]@Kay_17,

No, it's not a right to freedom of movement because you can still catch the train, go on a bicycle or ride with someone else. Now the state can only be accused of discrimination for instance if it refuses to issue a marriage license to heterosexual couples who meet all the basic requirements. The State is not discriminating if it denies license to polygamous couples or heterosexuals because they do not meet the basic requirements the State has established for issuance of licences.[/quote]The restriction need not be absolute to qualify as an infringement of the right. Unnecessary withdrawal/withholding of a driver's licence without any justification denies a person of a very common means of movement. Every bar in the free exercise/enjoyment of a fundamental right is an infringement.

tayo d: The State has already regularize what marriages should be. The status is only given to heterosexual adults who decide to b together out of their own free will. What the gay activists are asking for is that the State expand the definition. They have no right to ask the State to recognize their relationship beyond what the State already deems fit.

The substance of marriages is the agreement btw the parties involved, even extent of liability in event of a dissolution is can be determined by them.

And by the way, the State can't make up its mind and refuse to recognize the rights of the citizens!! That would amount to tyranny.

[quote author=Tayo-D]@Kay_17,

Strictly speaking, what the law does is to protect every citizen's rights. That is why murder and other infringements of people's rights are punishable by the govt. The govt does not grant the right to life, it protects the right to life.

Apply the same thing to marriage, and you will see the reason why the state can deny licensees to those it deems not meeting the basic requirements.

I have no problem with gay parades. It does not require any burden on the state other than to provide security of life and limbs. Asking for a marriage license is a different matter altogether.[/quote]If a State refuses to issue any driver's licence on its own discretion, that would clearly be an infringement on the right to free movement of a citizen!!

The State as to marriages is to regularize in order words register the marriages, sometimes provide the venue for celebration. The State can't elect who u are to marry or refuse the marriage unless on the clearly specified exceptions.

buzugee: i see you are one of those local nigerians who puts their hands on their heads. i bet you lick your plate too after eating

Yea I do as a "local Nigerian"!! By the way, were u ever taught on tautology?!

jmoore: @kay 17 , miracles are still happening today.

no need beating around the bush, answer the question of this thread or rest your case

Did you read what I posted at all??

cyrexx: @ Master_1
i support the argument of intelligent design, while i dont support the idea of Islamic or Christian God who condemns people to burn alive for eternity in hell fire for not believing in Christ as the only Lord and Savior (Christianity) or for not believing Muhammed is God's messenger (Islam)
I believe there must be a Higher Power somewhere who created this big complex massive gigantic world. or can you design and deploy something bigger and better than this world by yourself?

And from what did he create and design this gigantic super complex world?? From Nothing or Hinself??

[quote author=Tayo-D]@Kay_17,

You have a right to association. You do not have a right for others to recognize your association. That is the big difference here Kay. Gay couples are telling us that we have to recognize their relationships by all means. They have no right to require that of us or anybody. Like you I have the right to recognize some relationships where you do not. The govt also has the choice to recognize and not recognize some associations. For example, the govt recognizes the medical associations of Doctors and Nurses but not traditional herbalists. The herbalists have a right to their association, but they are not being discriminated against even though the govt does not give them the same recognition it gives to Doctors and Nurses. Get it?

In other words, you agree that this is a privilege because govts are not established to regularize rights but protect them. Marriage lives are regularized just as Drivers licenses. The State in its own wisdom establishes parameters to issue marriage and driver's licenses. It does to with a view to protecting the public and the State.

Their union is a reflection of their wishes. Asking the State to recognize it is bringing a third party into the equation. What about the wishes of the third party? In this case, the actions of the third party affect all of us because we all fund that third party. Now I will have no problem if the gay couples or even heterosexuals invite their families only as the third party to recognize their union. We do so in Naija as traditional marriages. That is their prerogative and I will not object to it. But asking that the govt recognize it is a different mater altogether.

I agree. This is why I can't understand the insistence that the State issue them licenses! They are coming together because they feel their union is good for their own emotional well-being. To bring the State into it, they have to prove that the relationship is good for the State as well. I think they will find it hard to do that because the relationship represents a biological deadened as someone rightly pointed out. Why should the State subsidize a relationship that if practiced widely will lead to the demise of the State?[/quote]The rights do have to reflect with the law. What do think would happen if everybody didn't recognize or respect your right to life??!!

As to the State's role, you are right that its to safeguard the rights of others, and in furtherance of that, ensures safe roads by limiting it to qualified drivers. A driver's licence is due process of qualifying a driver for the road and not infringing on the right to movement. Thus a driver licence should be obtainable upon due process and necessary qualification. Same with passport.

Marriages as I said earlier must reflect in law. The couple is to be treated as one person. Gay parades also is expression of one's identity and its celebration.

jmoore: @ kay 17, Answer the question "tell me how you came about as a living being, break it down. then continue to link your evolutionary tree or whatever your own tree might be to the, 10th generation, 1,000 generation, or 1,000,000 generation till you arrive a t a the final destination." That's the aim of this topic

Reason is not synonymous to omniscience, but a means to acquire knowledge and separate errors from the truth. Thus its not useful to an omniscient person, since such a person has all the knowledge already!
Thus your test is not the right one.

jmoore: reasoning and science cannot explain how a dead man resurrects after 4 days.

reasoning and science cannot explain how a fibroid in a woman's body just disappeared

reasoning and science cannot explain how a blind man suddenly starts to see without any aid.

reasoning and science cannot explain miracles, these are spiritual where science is not found

The bible is not the only holy book to contain supernatural tales, and its accepted that ancient understanding and knowledge was not as comprehensive as today. Philosophy and science were not conscious fields.

Miracles are of a supernatural concept that entities behave irrationally and beyond their nature. In order words, it is usual to expect a goat to talk!!

^^
Iran is a better model??

What is "public nuisance"?

Iran also suffers from drug abuse, from your conclusion its a government policy!

This is where the ugliness and dogma of religion comes into place. Deny, reject reason to make room for Faith. Unfortunately Faith doesn't identify the truth from errors. Simply accepting a preposition without any consideration at all doesn't mean u are right.

If Reason finds a being like your God is unable to exist, it could be right, not that its limited.

At least we can agree that reason, science and knowledge are antithetical to Faith and Christianity

[quote author=Master_1]God exists.
. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly
good.
. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all
evils.
. An omniscient being knows every way in which
evils can come into existence.
. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in
which an evil can come into existence, has the
power to prevent that evil from coming into
existence.
. A being who knows every way in which an evil
can come into existence, who is able to prevent
that evil from coming into existence, and who
wants to do so, would prevent the existence of
that evil.
. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and
perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

So....is God dead[/quote]It would also follow that the creation is the reflection of God's self. By God being perfectly good, where cometh evil?

*note that this refers to the Christian/islamic Gods*

The bible is just unfortunately another holy book claiming to be the word of God. But the first mistake is: its not the word of God, but the word of man pertaining to some God. Thus hearsay and not even reliable to our fallible courts.