₦airaland Forum

TV01: Private behaviour is one thing. State endorsement is another. What for? Why?

TV01: Those that indulge in it are victims - of the degradation and pathologies that ensue

TV01: Those that are enticed into it are victims - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380551/pdf/amjph00515-0051.pdf (search HIV) - http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/age/youth/

TV01: There are societal costs that are bourne by all- an active gay lifestyle cuts anything from 7 - 20 years off life expectancy. The clinical/health costs are staggering.

NativeBoy: The arguments being used to support homosexuality are essentially erroneous. And it is a great shame to compare the gay-rights movement to the civil rights movement. It really shows the lies many have bought into. There is no similarity if you understand what the civil rights movement was about. The greatest of which is that because the western world is scientifically more advanced than we Africans, it also means they are morally/ethically superior and that we ought to mimic their every move. This is a notion I keep seeing here on NL and we must be careful of it. It is colonial mentality. Yes, we as Africans can learn the concept of human rights from the west, but it must be tempered with common sense. Human rights isn't the same as doing whatever you want just because you have a certain disposition.

I do advocate that gay persons be treated with dignity and respect but I do not hesitate to state that homosexuality is a sin.

As the world approaches moral relativism, good and bad, right and wrong will have no meaning. Aftee all, the same arguments offered for homosexuality also justify incest. God help us.

TV01: No, I do not agree. Kindly answer the question which I have posed to you numerous times and I will gladly explicate further.


TV

TV01: If I point to procreation by a couple in a committed union - marriage - as a benefit to society worth supporting and rewarding by said society, I have at least pointed to something no? If it's about procreation, it's about something.

Once again, please provide an answer to the following question;

So what - for the benefit of society - distinguishes a committed homosexual couple from an uncommitted homosexual couple or even two men who don't even know each other from Adam? Why should we discriminate in favour of the committed couple by legally codifying their relationship and giving them benefits?

What's it all about ?

HNY

TV

TV01: Au contraire mon frere.

I have consistently pivoted my response to you on the "benefit to society" claim.

So what - for the benefit of society - distinguishes a committed homosexual couple from an uncommitted homosexual couple or even two men who don't even know each other from Adam?

Why should we discriminate - in terms of rewarding them - in favour of the committed couple?

TV

Image123: Jehovah is the only God.

rationalmind: @Redyln


You said something about you being God.

I need your honest answer on these questions.

1.If you were God, and you wanted to transmit a divine book which will of course be useless without mentioning the origins, which will you put, the myth of creation in the bible or the big-bang?

2. In place of all those irrelevant verses in the bible, don't you think another supposedly irrelevant verse on quantum mechanics may be better?

I understand your earlier point that the presence of irrelevances doesn't mean another must be put there.

My contention is, in place of those irrelevant verses, a verse about quantum mechanics would had been better. No?

Mzsolex: I dare you 2 bring up any religion bashing thread on NL alone and let c which religion dey attack. Islam section was quarantined but you can have a field day bashing xtianity and everybody feels good about it. Then do me lil favour, open google search and type in 'atheist pics' select any link of ur choice and then come back here 2 proof ur point.

Mzsolex: I'm telling you, 80% of atheist attack xtianity more than other religions. Outta this forum it's the same

TV01: @thehomer (or indeed anyone else),

Let me ask you this; lets take two sets of men, a pair and a couple. The pair do everything together as do the couple. The only difference being the couple are emotionally and/or erotically involved.

According to this PAIR appears to be close friends and COUPLE boyfriends. This distinction on sexual/emotional grounds is not important in the discussion of marriage. The real distinction here should be dating vs making a long term commitment. But let me put that on hold for a minute.


1. What is the benefit, what is in view or the outcome that should lead lead society to recognise their union or endorse/validate it in any way?

There is no obligation, benefit or requirement to endorse the pair or the couple (same as two women, or man and woman today who choose to live together as unmarried partners). They don't have any legal ties towards each other, by choice. Whether they are having sex or emotionally linked or not is irrelevant. They have no legal status, they might as well be friends/roommates and are treated as such. Either can walk away the next day in any manner with little consequence.

Should they decide to make a life long commitment eg to live together, merge their assets and plan a joint future, the benefit for their union to be recognized legally is that there will be a structure to provide security to both individuals as seen by the various rights they will get below.


2. What are the "various legal and social benefits" that society gift or accrue to this "family" unit and why.

Do your own research on marriage rights. Anyway examples, they can make important medical decisions on behalf of their partner, special visitation rights in prison/hospital, next-of-kin recognition, inheritance, family leave to take care of sick spouse, collect pension of deceased spouse, getting residency to be with your spouse, child support, in case of separation there is a structure to how assets are handled, societal recognition that you are a unit.


3. How are they in any way different to the "pair" who seek no societal endorsement of their union? Or any other "pair"?

Choice. Those who want to cohabit can cohabit those who want to make a long term commitment and feel secure in that commitment can do so irrespective of having sex or not. This is no different form cohabiting straight couples and married straight couples.


4. How are they in any way different to a second couple, identical to them, who seek no formal societal recognition of their coupling?
See above.


5. Why should society discriminate in their favour over the pair, other pairs or the 2nd identical couple simply because they formalise their union?

Firstly it is not in any one's favor. Marriage comes with responsibilities and obligations to your spouse so its not about doing things in anyone’s favour. Society should recognize the formalized union because its a firm commitment by 2 people to merge into a family. They want to take the relationship from friendship/dating to formal legal unit and enjoy the rights, kinship ties as well as obligations and responsibilities cohabiting friends choose to not to partake in.


I'd appreciate a response to the above without recourse to opposite sex marriage. Unless of course you can demonstrate that they are the same in every way and that society' endorsement or benefits have nothing to do with the potential or outcome, but solely the legal joining or solemnisation

TV

Joshthefirst: if you are able to look carefully and understand context, you'll realize that my statement which has brought up such controversy was a simple joke.

Joshthefirst: this is untrue. After a series of gradual genetic variations and speciation occuring over millions of years, a monkey can become a man.

Deep Sight: I contend that save there exist a being which inhabits the body, there could be no such thing as the senses, no such thing as thought, and no such thing as emotion.

To be clear, I say that the being utilizes the particles which form a body, as instruments of perception: and I deny the reverse - which would be to say that dead particles assemble over time, and through evolution, into a perceptive being.

I say that a robot cannot taste an orange, or enjoy s.ex, however it may be formed, now or in the future.

I say that cameras, even computerized cameras, do not have the faculty of sight.

I say that audio recorders cannot hear.

I say that perception is only open to a person, and that matter, and the body, is not, and cannot, be a person.

I say that experience is only open to a person.

I therefore say that that which is not material, evidentially exists.

I task the atheist to identify, define and locate the self.

mascot87: You shall not put the Lord your God to test

TV01: 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.

TV01: 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.

TV01: 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.
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.

TV01: Dressing this up in the language of rights equality, tolerance, etc. is bull. There is no plausible argument for sodomy, sodomitic, marriage or sodomitic adoption. Anthropologically it is deviant and deleterious. From a Christian point of view it's simply immoral
Please take heed, while you are busy divorcing your faith and politics (both of which you are in error), they will try and forcibly separate you from your faith.