₦airaland Forum

johnkent:
This is the height of ignorance!!!! Because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
I'm just gonna sit back and see how banning man-lover relationships in Nigeria is going to make Nigeria a much better place. Its so sad how we Africans in the west are fighting for human rights especially rights of women and children in Africa and in the middle East but our folks back home think its okay to send someone to jail for 14 years because of his/her intimate orientation.
I just wished Nigerians would sit back, relax and think this through before they make such an irrational decision. Sending G A Y to Jail isn't going to solve the numerous problems we have in Nigeria. G A Y will be pressured into marrying your sisters and they would still turn around and sleep with boyz on the side because that's who they are (G A Y ).
Its unfortunate that most of you guys on here are so convinced about how bad G A Y 's are but you've never been in contact with a G A Y person. You'll be surprised to know that some of the people that you love and folks that have made huge impacts in your lives might be G A Y . These are humans just like us. They are not some human from outta space.
All this talk about lets send them to jail for 14 years but have you ever thought about what if your brother/sister was G A Y ? Would you have him/her sent to jail because of their se xu al orientation? Would u disown your brother because of his se xu al orientation
we need to get our priorities straight. Nobody in the Nigeria G A Y community was asking to be married so I really dont understand why this should be an issue at this point in time. We can ban homosexuality all we want but we can't get rid of it. People are born G A Y and trust me, most of them that i've talked have always said if being G A Y was a choice, why would they even choose to be G A Y ? And that is a question that we need to ask ourselves. Why would a good looking college basketball player choose to be G A Y when he could pretty much be with whatever chick he wants on campus? Why would a rich G A Y man do thesame?

The thing about this bill is not only does it ban man-lover marriage but it contains other little laws that could be used against any Nigerian. Anyone could come up tomorrow and accuse any one of us of being G A Y r and maybe having ties to a G A Y organization and before you know it, we might be sentenced to 14 years in Jail. We have to be very careful what we wish for. There are alot of things men in Nigeria do that could be construed as a G A Y behavior when that usually isn't their intention but that could be used against you if this bill passes. Again, we have to be very careful what we wish for. If this bill does become law, you might be ending up in jail for hugging a friend, sharing an apartment with a friend or even holding hands with a friend of same sex like Nigerians have always done without thinking anything of it.

Guys as educated folks, we need to think this through. Don't let the members of congress up there use this bill as a way to distract us from more important issues that needs to be addressed.
When was the last time any member of congress was fired up about education, healthcare, poverty, childhood poverty, electricity, corruption, high unemployment rate? keep thinking!!
Why are they so fired up about something that's never going to change the lives of any Nigerian? Don't be fooled my fellow Nigerians. I bet ya billions of naira has been siphoned outta the country in the last month while you guys keep arguing about a non issue!

Lets be smart and not be played by the politicians.

Will you calm down and stop venting like some straight dude converted your Partner? What's all that nonsense about Africans in the west fighting for freedom . . Blablabla
how popular is the gay community amongst African Americans? Are they the darlin of everyone there. It is so insulting to hear your likes premise their intolerant argument on westerb values and try to ram down other people's throat. How many states in the US grants full rights to gay couples in civil unions, how many even allow them to get married?? Even Britain that is threatening fire & brimstone is not amongst the country that give full legal rights to gay couples, so what are you on about? You are fighting for rights in mid east and Africa?? With wat? Ak47, missiles, migs, bombs and grenades? Little wonder you lot have succeded. Look Nigeria is a sovereign state with full powers to govern herself, we don't need indoctrinated robots like you to come and tell us what is good and bad. We can argue our cases on their merits and demerits not on your terms, now run along.

debosky:
Preemptive laws are prone to abuse - that's the point being made. Once you are labelled a g'ay association, you can be prosecuted, even if you have not infringed on anyone's rights. That is the problem with this law aside from being unconstitutional.

This has nothing to do with liberalism, but is a fundamental breach of the provision of the constitution guaranteeing freedom of association. You cannot criminalise exercising a fundamental human right with this type of blanket ban. As you mentioned, an armed robber's freedom of movement only gets curtailed when he robs someone else and deprives them of a right.

Is 'protection of morals' included in the exclusive legislative list? No law can be made which violates the constitution - why is that concept evading you?

pre-emptive or not, any law is prone to abuse if you can get a good lawyer to spin it to your benefit, you can ask those LGBT advocacy groups and h'omosexuals themselves playing the victim how far such an experiment has got them. It does not explicitly term it protection of morals but the words peace and order are all inclusive in their meaning. And if you are wrongly labelled a g'ay group; who says that is tantamount to a jail term without evidence or exhaustive proof. What are the courts made for? Come on!! That is not enough reason to argue that prohibitive laws that greatly restrict this social malaise should be relaxed, abeg. My only consideration here is the constitution not the potential of the law to be spun by any evil genius lawyer to anyone's side.

debosky:
The law remains unconstitutional unless freedom of association is removed from the constitution. This law did not invest the freedom of association and hence cannot take it away - only the constitution can do that.

The beauty of democracy is respecting the laws of the land - the supreme law i.e. the constitution, prevents any other law from infringing of the rights of Nigerians to gather or form associations.

Those freedoms in the constitution may only be suspended in extraordinary circumstances like during war.

Well, it is not up to you to decide that, we will have to test it out the courts and of course the legal interpretation will do a lot to clear any doubt. When it comes to legal technicalities, no law is "unspinnable"so long as the lawyer has a very good argument to back up his claim.

dinachi:
Why are intentionally refusing to see the wisdom of the senate? The bill does not say man-lover people should not be involved in organisation. Lets be clear before all these nairaland man-loving-men railroad us with their lies. The bill rather prohibits any organisation or clubs formed with the aim to support, aid or promote homosexuality. @ Obinoscopy you will not go to jail for treating homosexuals but you will be affected if you form an organisation solely dedicated to promote, aid or support homosexuals in their life style. Stop muddling issues. Unless you admit by yourself that the man-lover lifestyle is extremely risky healthwise and you are suggesting they should be quarantined! Unless you are seeking to weaken the senates stand as a future springboard for full legal status for man-lover marriage in Nigeria. Lets stop deceptively aiding what we know to be wrong! It is either you are against man-lover marriage or not period any buts is a tacit support!

exactly what I am trying to let them understand. Where is the sense in saying that same-sex marriage is prohibited but you can form associations, g'ay clubs, g'ay church, have suggestive h'omosexual content in prints, artwork, media, school curriculum and so on . . . Does that not kill the very essence of the prohibitive ban on same-sex union. Just like they have done in the west and succeeded-hiding under the guise of fundamental human rights to perpetrate themselves-as their law makers and politicians pay lipservice to the issue, speak from both sides of their mouth and give contradictory remarks about homosexualism while their lobbyist agents take advantage and move their cause. Infact, I was compelled to join the debate cos Evilbrain was busy criticizing the whole essence of the bill, trying to pass it off as unimportant and a waste of time. He, in a series of posts criticized why the senate had to make it more difficult for same-sex cohabitation even before he worried about the ban that was as well extended to LGBT advocacy groups and association, in other words, he was "mad" at NA for even bringing the matter up in the first place. It was until I challenged him and moderate commentators like Debosky brought a new dimension (even though I do not entirely agree with his soft landing agrument for the LGBT) to the debate by stating that the bill would have been ok if it had not placed a ban advocacy and lobbyist group for LGBT that he started toning down his emotional outburst.
At least, we all have to a considerable extent, given reasons why we can't in a fit of emotional rage, passion or outburst entirely dimissed the need for such legislation or wholly accept it in it present form-the thought of seeing same-sex couple kissing and snogging eachother in this country feels my palate with bile, knowing how our own version of copied culture can be exaggerated in practise, it is very important that we nip it in the bud.

debosky:
Where is the proof that ga-y gatherings have formed groups to 'convert' straights to g-ays? If you can prove a g'ay association is infringing on your rights, take them to court - there is absolutely no need for legislation.

What if the association is a gathering of g'ays seeking to become straight, or g'ays seeking to enforce the use of contraception to prevent further HIV infections? Your statement about 'allowing them to flourish' is a direct violation of the constitution - freedom of thought and association.

Well, unfortunately for liberals like you and evil brain(lol) pre-emptive laws do not give the time and patience for proof, especially when one can easily draw examples from what is going on in places where that is the case.

debosky:
Is there a provision of 'protection of morals' in the constitution of Nigeria?

Exactly - the case was dealt with in court, not by passing draconian laws.

Are you in anyway trying to infer that the national assembly does not have the powers to make laws. Need I remind you that: (2) The National Assembly shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Constitution.

debosky:
Exactly - the case was dealt with in court, not by passing draconian laws.

Well, that is the beauty of democracy, let the LGBT present their case when the Bill will be debated and during the public hearing at the lower house, if they fail to get the support of the Nigerian majority, may be they can then go to the court. And if they are still told in clear terms that their associations and coys are not allowed then everyone must respect it.

debosky:
How is an association of g'ays (for example) seeking to connect with other g'ays threatening to anyone's way of life? If a specific association can be proven to be inimical to national security, such a group should be prosecuted under national security laws, instead of making ill-thought BLANKET bans, that affects ANY type of g'ay association.

The legislature cannot legislate morality because morality is associated with belief systems in general - as the constitution does not recognise any specific religion, then the basis for legislating morality disappears.

If we want to legislate morality, we might as well also create legislation that makes disrespecting your parents a criminal offence.

The reason is the 'societal norms' you mentioned - these are more than sufficient to control the issue without the government seeking to legislate morality.

The government should never enact blanket bans on any associations as this can be an easy cover to rope in any association the government wants to get rid of, e.g. accusing ACN of being a g'ay party by the PDP to lock them up.

The lack of open homo'sex'uality in Nigeria is not the existence of laws, it is the deep societal abhorrence for it - there is no reason to change that in my view. Even without further legislation, so'domy is already deemed illegal in Nigeria.

It's not a matter of what I believe as such, this is a discussion of the law - when a law contradicts the requirements of a higher authority (the constitution) then it should not stand.

Morality in secularism is not based on legislation - it is based on the belief systems of a particular society and should self-regulate.

I feel I should add this little information so people that are in the habit of digressing from the main issue here by stating that h'omosexualism is not Nigeria's problem, there is no need to talk about it or whether there are reported cases of same-sex couple besieging court marriage registry and churches to make their union legal. The answer is yes that the trigger. Infact the trigger for the bill was that two gay men went to a registry somewhere in Edo State to get married and were refused. The gay partners and their organisation were said to have threatened to sue the registrar for discrimination who then alerted the authorities that there were no laws in the land specifically banning same sex marriage. Now you see why it is understandable that the Senators felt a bill against same sex marriage and their conniving associations were indeed urgent.

Evil Brain:
Imagine if you're not gäy, but you disagree with the way the Nigerian government treats them and write your Senator about it. Under this law, you can be sent to prison just for speaking your mind.

If you open a shelter for victims of hömöphobic violence, you can be accused of running a gäy club and sent to prison.

If you belong to a gäy church or religious association, even one that advocates celibacy among its members, you can go to prison.

Under this law, gäys can't meet with other gäys to discuss their problems, they can't organize to fight for their rights, they can't even protest their mistreatment. Under this law, if a gäy person is killed, the police can declare his/her funeral an illegal assembly of man-loving-men then arrest and prosecute everyone there with your presence being the only thing needed to establish guilt. Does nigeria really want to start jailing people just for attending a funeral, or a birthday party, or a church program, or a meeting?

What is happening here is that people are letting their hatred get in the way of their common sense. How can you support a law that discriminates against a group of people, turning them into second-class citizens?

And this isn't aparthied which was based on something obvious like skin colour. In this case, anyone could be falsely accused of being gäy and have no way of proving otherwise. So if you're thinking you're safe because you're not gäy, you're decieving yourself. This bill endangers everyone's rights. And it must be stopped.

are you painting scenerios or making attempts to misinterprete the stipulations of the bill? "Endangers everyone's right?" duh?? The only ones who feel endagered here are closet h'omosexuals, s'ex pervs and their sympathisers. If you feel very strongly about homosexuals' rights and all that emotional outburst, may be you should instead open rehabilitation centres for them so they wont have to clash with the law and feel its stings.

debosky:
Agreed. Can you point out how association of ga-ay people infringes on the right of others?

Yes I can. Such association of course goes against the very reason for banning same-sex cohabitation. Let's not pretend we don't know the agenda of such associations- form lobby groups, get more vulnerable straight people to become h'omosexuals, discuss ways to further their cause- what is the sense in placing a ban on same-sex marriage only to allow them the atmosphere to flourish?? The very reason for the ban was to discourage, de-emphasize, and make it unattractive to the unsuspecting and vulnerable members of the public. The casualties the bill is trying to protect here are the vulnerable Nigerians, our family structure, belief system and moral standards.

debosky:
What clause of the constitution defines 'un-natural acts' and prohibits them? If this clause does not exist, then it is merely in your imagination. What does exist is a provision for freedom of association that this law violates.

Ok, I agree with you that it is not stated explicitly what unnatural act is. However, there is a lawful basis( which I believe is borne out of my argument of unnatural acts) to argue that any freedom of association that violates the "protection of morals" is unlawful.
Infact, there was a similar case between the austrian government and a same-sex couple that were denied legal union using the notion of "protection of morals".
This argument is full of varying interpretation that can be spun either way.

debosky:
This is not true - why can't the association of 'blow-job lovers' form an association for themselves? I am not really concerned about the practices as such, the issue here is prohibition of association of a group of people - something not permitted under the constitution.

Even Boko Haram's gathering, in itself, is not a crime - the crime only emanates if the purpose of gathering undermines the security and safety of the Nigerian state.

Their practice (i.e. homo-sex-uality) is not the issue here - it is the denial of their fundamental rights to form associations.

here again you are wrong. If it is established that such a gathering, association, meeting, rendenzvous or even a congregation of h'omosexuals is inimical and a threat not just to national security but moral value system, people's way of life and belief systems. If you are not concerned about the inimical potentials such gatherings portends, society does and it behoves on the legislator to legislate morality in general.

debosky:
Stay on point - is there a law prohibiting in'cestuous cohabitation in Nigeria? Is there a law banning the association of people considering themselves Inbreeding participants?

The law is not borne out of secularism, but the constitution establishes secularism - a big difference. This presupposition does not exist except in your mind, as there is no definition of what is 'natural', nor a provision specifying that only those acting in a 'natural' fashion have human rights.

What about those that consider themselves asexual or celibate? Are those people denied rights as well? Is asexual behaviour 'natural'?

This is purely a figment of your imagination that can never stand up to any scrutiny in the court of law.

Note again, I do not support same sex marriage in any form as I believe marriage is STRICTLY between a man and a woman, but any law prohibiting same sex marriage MUST NOT violate the Nigerian constitution and must SQUARELY address the issue and nothing else, i.e. no collateral damage.

I am not sure if there is a law that specifically addresses incest but I know it is not practiced openly for a reason. Moreover, if such association is deemed inimical of course they will get what is coming to them, I already dealt with that.
And yes, agreed the law is often said to establish secularism but in practise can you honestly believe that? Besides, who says there is no discussion of morals in secularism?

UPHOLDING TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE IS NOT "DISCRIMINATORY" Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally. For example, FAA and airline regulations rightly discriminate regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an airline. Those who are not trained pilots have no rightful claim to "discrimination" because they are not allowed to fly an airplane. On the other hand, discrimination would occur if properly credentialed pilots are refused hiring simply because of the color of their skin. In this case such individuals have been denied employment simply because of their race. The issue of alleged discrimination was addressed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson, when it rejected the argument that denying a same-sex couple the right to marry was the equivalent of racial discrimination. The court found: "In common sense and constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex." Similarly, in October 2003, a three-judge panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled unanimously against two homosexuals who argued in a lawsuit that marriage is a fundamental right, and that prohibiting it for same-sex couples violates constitutional protections for due process. The court found that the state's ban on homosexual marriage "rationally furthers a legitimate state interest," and thus does not discriminate against homosexuals by depriving them of their constitutional rights. The court further noted: "Recognizing a right to marry someone of the same sex would not expand the established right to marry, but would redefine the legal meaning of 'marriage.'" When gay activists and their supporters cry "discrimination!" they conveniently avoid the question of whether homosexual relationships merit being granted equality with marriage. Yet this question deserves our close examination, for the danger posed to our society by redefining marriage is no less than permitting unqualified individuals to fly airplanes.

THE PHONY COMPARISON WITH RACE
Many black Americans are understandably offended when gay activists, who have never been relegated to the back of a bus, equate their agenda with racial discrimination. In a statement supporting traditional marriage, several black pastors wrote: "We find the gay community's attempt to tie their pursuit of special rights based on their behavior to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s abhorrent." A majority of Black Americans reject the facile comparison of sexual behavior with an immutable characteristic such as race, and disagree with the oft-heard contention by gay activists that homosexuals are "born that way." A Pew Research poll found that by an overwhelming 61 to 26 percent margin, Black Protestants believe sexual orientation can be changed.15 The same poll reported that Black Americans oppose homosexual marriage by a 60 to 28 percent margin.
GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE
Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are h'omosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all citizens--including the right to marry. However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want. A parent cannot marry their child (even if he or she is of age), two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia. Neither can gay activists appeal to a "natural rights" argument: i.e., no reasonable person would deny h'omosexuals and l'esbians their self-evident right to marry. Harry Jaffa cogently replies that such arguments actually argue against homosexual marriage: "Nature and reason tell us that a Negro is a human being, and is not to be treated like a horse or an ox or a dog, just as they tell us that a Jew is a human being, and is not to be treated as a plague-bearing bacillus. But with the very same voice, nature and reason tell us that a man is not a woman, and that sexual friendship is properly between members of opposite-sexes, not the same sex."

SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS ARE NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF MARRIAGE
A growing body of research indicates that in key respects homosexual and lesbian relationships are radically different than married couples.
-- Relationship duration:
While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression."
A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.
-- Monogamy versus promiscuity:
Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that "committed" h'omosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year.
-- Intimate partner violence:
h'omosexual and lesbian couples experience by far the highest levels of intimate partner violence compared with married couples as well as cohabiting heterosexual couples.
Lesbians, for example, suffer a much higher level of violence than do married women.
What about the Children?
In his exhaustive examination of human history, Giovanni Battista Vico (1668-1744), Professor of Rhetoric at the University of Naples, concluded that marriage between a man and a woman is an essential characteristic of civilization, and as such is the "seedbed" of society. Vico warned that chaos would ensue in the absence of strong social norms encouraging marital faithfulness and the loving care of children born to the union. Since reproduction requires a male and a female, society will always depend upon heterosexual marriage to provide the "seedbed" of future generations. The evidence indicates that homosexual or lesbian households are not a suitable environment for children. Data from the 2000 U.S. Census and other sources indicates that only a small percentage of h'omosexual households choose to raise children. One reason for this is that the raising of children is inimical to the typical h'omosexual lifestyle, which as we have seen typically involves a revolving bedroom door. With the added problem of high rates of intimate partner violence, such households constitute a dangerous and unstable environment for children. H'omosexuals and lesbians are unsuitable role models for children because of their lifestyle. Dr. Brad Hayton observes that h'omosexual households "model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. , And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good 'marital' relationship.

THE FRAT HOUSE CONCEPT OF "FAMILY" This radical definition of marriage gives rise to bizarre conceptions of family that include virtually any relationship or social group. In 1990, a San Francisco task force on family policy led by l'esbian activist Roberta Achtenberg defined the family as a "unit of interdependent and interacting persons, related together over time by strong social and emotional bonds and/or by ties of marriage, birth, and adoption." The "frat house with revolving bedroom doors" concept of marriage and the family poses dangers to children. Polyamory advocates pay scant attention to the dangers posed to children being raised according to this "frat house with revolving bedroom doors" concept of marriage and the family. Yet, this nebulous, free-for-all model of the family looms ahead for our society unless a bulwark is created in the form of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. The slippery slope leading to the destruction of marriage as we know it draws ever closer with the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to compel the state legislature to grant homosexual sex partners the legal status of married people. This decision has emboldened public officials in various localities to grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples, igniting a national debate on the question: What is marriage-- and where do we draw the limits on who can marry?

THE "POLYAMORY" MOVEMENT " Sean has a wife. He also has a girlfriend. His girlfriend has another boyfriend. That boyfriend is dating Sean's wife." description of "polyamory" relationship The movement to redefine marriage has found full expression in what is variously called "polyfidelity" or "polyamory," which seeks to replace traditional marriage with a bewildering array of sexual combinations between various groups of individuals. "Polyamory" is derived from Greek and Latin roots, and is loosely translated "many loves." Polyamorists reject the "myth" of monogamy and claim to practice "harmonious love and intimacy between multiple poly partners."
Stanley Kurtz describes the "bewildering variety of sexual combinations. There are triads of one woman and two men; heterosexual group marriages; groups in which some or all members are bisexual; lesbian groups, and so forth."
The polyamory movement took its inspiration from Robert Heinlein's 1961 sci- fi novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, in which sexual possessiveness (as in marital exclusivity) is portrayed as an evil leading to societal ills such as murder and war. The book helped spawn a number of ill-fated sexual communes, such as San Francisco's Kerista community, in which members had sexual relations with each other according to a rotating schedule. ANTI-MARRIAGE ACTIVSTS
The Kerista commune collapsed in 1992, but the polyamory movement has taken hold in academia where, according to First Things, its proponents "are now so influential, if not dominant, in the academic field of marriage and family law." Scholars enamored with polyamory argue in favor of "a social revolution that would replace traditional marriage and family law." Kurtz concurs that the "gradual transition from gay marriage to state-sanctioned polyamory, and the eventual abolition of marriage itself, is now the most influential paradigm within academic family law." One prominent advocate of polyamory, David Chambers, professor of law at the University of Michigan, argues: "By ceasing to conceive of marriage as a partnership composed of one person of each sex, the state may become more receptive to units of three or more."

A MAN AND HIS HORSE
In what some call a denial of a basic civil right, a Missouri man has been told he may not marry his long-term companion. Although his situation is unique, the logic of his argument is remarkably similar to that employed by advocates of ho'mosexual marriage. The man claims that the essential elements of marriage-love and commitment-are indeed present:"She's gorgeous. She's sweet. She's loving. I'm very proud of her. . . Deep down, way down, I'd love to have children with her." Why is the state of Missouri, as well as the federal government, displaying such heartlessness in denying the holy bonds of wedlock to this man and his would-be "wife"? It seems the state of Missouri is not prepared to indulge a man who waxes eloquently about his love for a 22-year-old mare( female Horse) named Pixel.
THE THREAT to MARRIAGE
The Missouri man and ho'mosexual "marriage" proponents categorically reject the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Instead, the sole criterion for marriage becomes the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment." But once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex--even non-human "partners." To those who object to comparing gay marriage to widely-rejected sexual preferences, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very suggestion that two men or two women could "marry" was itself greeted with scorn. Of course, media stories on same-sex marriage rarely address the fact that redefining marriage logically leads to the Missouri man and his mare. Instead, media reports typically focus instead on ho'mosexual couples who resemble the stereotypical ideal of a married couple. Ignored in such reports is social science research indicating that such idealized "families" are utterly atypical among homosexuals. In this document we will show the following:
1. Gay marriage threatens the institutions of marriage and the family.
2. Same-sex relationships are not the equivalent of traditional marriage
3. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue 4. Americans overwhelmingly reject gay marriage
5. Gay marriage is not a moral alternative to traditional marriage.
6. Homosexuality is rightly viewed as unnatural.

Because I feel very passionate about the issue of homosexuals and the agender by their proponents and supporters, I shall, in a series of posts paste excerpts from a well documented and unbiased research made by an America family counselor on the Slipery Slope of same sex marriage.
I advise that people should keep an open mind and refrain from making comments if they do not understand topic of discussion. Everyone deserves to get all sides of this over-laboured argument of homosexuality and not a one-sided view.
Relax and Enjoy.

debosky:
The crux of law making is ONLY general acceptability after personal human rights are protected.

Not neccessarily true, there is no how every aspect of a law in practice can be generally accepted and at thesame time protect every aspect of "personal human rights"-this has been one of my earlier points since I joined the debate of this thread. No law is absolute in itself, it guanrantees you certain rights so long as you don't exercise it beyond the limits of what can be covered by the law. What you call your rights might be an infringement on somebody else's right or may not have fulfilled the basis upon which the law or right was conferred.
That is why I have consistently maintained that there is no provision in the constitution that confers anyone rights to perform un-natural acts or its promotion and propagation in any form.

debosky:
If we are 'conforming' to human anatomy as you claim, then the laws should also outlaw 'bl[i]o[/i]wjobs as the mouth is meant for eating and speaking not so? Why haven't the senate done so?

Now this is a very elementary way to look at it or even make any sound comparison coz in the first place, there is no group of people with potential to form unions, associations, symposiums, public lectures on that basis. Besides, nobody is stopping anybody from engaging in any kind of s'exual pervasion in the privacy of his house or home but the moment it is made public, it becomes a punishable offense.

debosky:
Social vices like drug addiction are prohibited because of the proven nature of their negative harm by nature. This is in no sense comparable to homo-sex-uality in in general, except in cases where other's rights are violated - e.g. ra-pe or mo-lestation. In this sense it is no different to hetero-sex-uality.

this line of argument is greatly flawed on so many counts as it ignores the fact that social vices are not just prohibited by virtue of their negetive nature alone but a mix of that and other set values and moral standards of a society . For instance, where lies the negetive nature in in'cestuous cohabitation between two consenting adults? I understand in some clime it is practised while in another it is a crime, this again gives credence to my earlier comments about the provision and fulfilment of a law or right.

debosky:
The issue here is very simple - if the government wanted to prohibit g-aay marriage, the way to go about it is very clear as done in the US - define marriage as STRICTLY between a man and a woman and make any other form of marriage illegal.

Why should the law overreach itself by declaring any g-ay club (Dunno what the express definition of a g-ay club is) or association is prohibited. What gives you the right to prohibit the association of bona-fide Nigerian citizens?

that is exactly what the senators are trying to right now- the institution of marriage will continue to be between a man and a woman and you entitled to the fundamental human rights of association so far it is fulfilled that it is a naural act. The fundamental human right is for human beings whose basis for the rights pressuposes heterosexuals rights that are deemed natural by the set values and acceptable norms of the society. This cab not be ignored no matter how hard anyone tries to want to overlook them, there is no such things as a law that is entirely borne out of seculiarism.

dinachi:
The man-loving-men are here again! Let me guess, you can hide behind nairaland but you cant organise a march to tell the public what you believe in! Looking for evidence that man-lover sex is dangerous to health, just google the dangers of man-lover sex. How come HIV was first diagonised among man-lover men? Are you unaware that BehindBased cancer while a rarity among heterosexual couples is a common denominator among man-loving-men. What of the rare form of cancer Kaposi Sarcoma that man-loving-men donated to the world through their insane practices? Are you so easily decieved by the west? If homosexuality is okay what then is wrong with Inbreeding between two consenting adults? Pls stop being silly! The Bible says all proponents of homosexuality are people with oblique reprobate minds! Thats your problem, your minds have suffered a major disconnect! America is the great LovePeddler spoken about in the book of Revelation. Stop following them blindly.

Seriously, don't take that guy, Cine serious abeg, kid is just excited about the rubbish he has been reading from his 900 pages book. His own source of evidence is the book. Imagine him asking me to provide him with evidence that homosexualism is a normal human phenomenon and calls it a myth cos it has been debunked by psycoanalyst, that I should provide him with evidence that one stands an extremely high chance of contracting HIV aids through homosexual sex than than the normal man-woman sex. Obviously, the kid is just running off with the nonsense that he reads from just a book. He is not worthy of any serious response from me that is why I ve deliberately chosen to ignore his gibberish logic cos they aint original neither are they his own anyway.

Cine:
@evil brain, it's a must read, there aren't many books on the subject. In fact I think it may well be the only book (or one of a few) on the history of blacks in britain.

you wouldn't want to be walking the streets in early 20th century london. people thought we were an abomination.

little wonder you have been throwing the word abomination all over the place, even though I am yet to see any post here that has specifically used the word to describe homosexuals( not that i feel otherwise though). I just knew you wrre just vomiting quotes and lines from a book or article, no wonder.

Evil Brain:
Boko Haram are following the exact same logic that you espoused. "These people are living in our land and refusing to follow our religion/tradition, therefore we have the right to kill them."

you obviously dont get it.
You see things in white and black, unfortunately others see different shades of colour

Cine:
however i would like to add separately that I don't think my arguments are at all unrelated. I've asked several times for people to justify clearly, why they believe such an act to be an abomination, and have stated here why the scientific arguments for are flawed and based on individual bigotry. I find it interesting that you didn't challenge any of the points, rather, challenged my grammatical integrity, said I misrepresented you etc, please, I'm now asking the questiion, as it is imo totally related. do you agree that hom0sexu.al behaviour is normal if not why?

if realy you have read this thread from page one like you claimed then you will understand where I stand on this issue. I hate it that I have to repeat myself over and over again. There is nothing normal about h'omosexualism, everyone at some point go through stages of desires- good, bad and ugly- however, as humans we choose to conform to the norms by sticking to what is known to the human anatomy and behaviour as normal. The a'nus as is known is for discharge of abdominal waste not for sex. Just because some pervs claim they are aroused by the thoughts of a fellow man's a'nus does not make it normal. If you want me to give you a pass mark based on fundamental human right then I could as well argue thesame for other social vices that we sometimes fantasize about but are not allowed by law to express them because they are not only unnatural but against what is generally accepted. Please read up my responses to these issues on this thread and concentrate on the topic instead of making baseless presumptions about my person just to prove a point.

Cine:
Yes, I read staying power in hurry; a 900 page book which touches on scientific racism and then came on here to debate. Please, I type one hundred words a minute, am msn ing, facebook chatting, writing a thesis, debating on here, having a conversation, and watching tv simultaneously as I wait for el clasico to start. YES, I try to back up what I say with evidence, using creditable sources and quotations, from things I've read, instead of just spewing stuff out and expecting you to accept it.

eg.

I challenge you justify with credible evidence/research that any of what you say here is true, so I can respond accordingly.

How do you know there's a fasst spread, or did you just make that up. you need to back your arguments up. It's how a debate works.  

back to the original point. You infer that ga/ys may need treatment/a cure to treat their condition. You believe that a child may somehow be infected through influence, if I misread your point or your line of argument, I apologize. It wasn't my intention to mislead.

I want to believe you are sb with a mimd of his own abd not just some indoctrinated robot, right?

Evil Brain:
Of course they ignore the traditions. They don't worship Allah. They don't pray 5 times a day. They drink alcohol. Their women don't wear the burqua and walk around with their ankles, wrists and faces exposed like pröstitutes. They even send their girls to school to mix with, tempt and seduce the boys against koranic injunctions. Islam is the dominant religion in the north and following your logic, if they don't respect themselves and blend with the muslims, then they deserve to be killed.

I challenge you to think of a reason to keep the northern christians alive that doesnt also apply to people like me.

Also google "minority rights in a democracy". You have a lot to learn.

Perhaps, that is why the BokoHaram boys are on the prowl, since according to you christians in the north flagrantly disrespect the way of life of the indigenes.

rhymz:
it is plane dishonesty to suggest that christians up north or muslim down south flagrantly ignore the norms, tradition, culture of the people there. In fact, in cases where thet have felt an imposition on their way of life the result has been the violence we see everyday there Bokoharam comes to mind.

Cine:
Hom0sexu ality is not a pathology in need of reorientation/cure/treatment. Science has debunked that myth time and time again. You sound no different from the bigots and racists who used pseudo science to convince the British parliament that blacks weren\t human, which in turn enabled them to justify their racist and bigoted behaviour "oh they're not human so it's okay to treat them like this." The greatest psychoanalysis of our time Mr freud said that homos.exuals aren't sick.

"Scientific heterosexism operates in a very similar fashion to that of scientific racism in that it starts with a priori view - in this case the belief that homosexuality is an aberration - and then creates a body of empirical evidence designed to confirm the very theory it purports to scientifically prove.  The result is a circular form of logic that ultimately has been responsible for creating a body of literature used to pathologize a group of people who, as we now know, are no more capable of changing their intimate orientation as you or I are capable of changing our DNA."

To say that hom0 behaviour is not 'normal' is down to your prejudices, admit it. Just like people often see race as being biological, despite science repeatedly debunking that myth.

Read staying power. There'e a plethora of chapters devoted to the science of the time. e.g. It's why the myth that blacks have abnormal sized/bigger d.i.cks still lingers to this day. Usually down to bigots using anything to justify their behaviour, I mean how else can they sleep at night if they don't justify what it is their doing.

The problem I have with you is your resort to unrelated arguments and misrepresenting the line of my argument. You sometimes sound like you are regurgitating something you read in a hurry with little understanding.
What are you on about with all these nonsense. I have never claimed homosexualism was a pathological infection, in fact, I have consistently argued that for the fact homosexualism is not a congenital disease shows that it can be learned if allowed to flourish. All these big grammar you are spewing is not in anyway helping your points.

Evil Brain:
Following the logic in the bolded, all christians in the north should be killed for ignoring islamic traditions and flagrantly promoting a strange religion. All hausas in the east should be killed. All honest people in Abuja should be killed. All non-rètarded nairalanders should be killed.

it is plane dishonesty to suggest that christians up north or muslim down south flagrantly ignore the norms, tradition, culture of the people there. In fact, in cases where thet have felt an imposition on their way of life the result has been the violence we see everyday there Bokoharam comes to mind.

Cine:
Some interesting, insightful and funny research for all you hom0 phobes out there: Homophobic men most excited by man-lover indecency.

"[Investigators] asked heterosexal men how comfortable and anxious they are around man-lover men. Based on these scores, they then divided these men into two groups: men that are homophobic, and men who are not. These men were then shown three, four minute videos. One video depicted straight sex, one depicted lady-loving-lady sex and one depicted man-lover male sex. While this was happening, a device was attached to the male participant’s manlinesses. This device has been found to be triggered by intimate arousal, but not other types of arousal (such as nervousness, or fear – arousal often has a very different meaning in psychology than in popular usage).When viewing lady-loving-lady sex and straight sex, both the homophobic and the non-homophobic men showed increased joystick circumference. For man-lover male sex, however, only the homophobic men showed heightened joystick arousal.

Heterosexual men with the most anti-man-lover attitudes, when asked, reported not being sexually excited by man-lover male sex videos. But, their manlinesses reported otherwise."

Homophobic men were the most sexually excited by man-lover male sex acts.

source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-excited-man-lover-male-indecency

Utter rubbish!! If this proves anything, it strengthens the argument that if we do not do anything about this group, they will infect -through influence and this kind of g'ay propagander- our young and impressionable childrien with their vice. This despicable study shows that h'omosexualism is a thing of the mind than a natural instict stemming from any congenital disease like a lot of them resort to claiming. Little wonder a huge percentage of ho'mosexuals are kids and impressionable adults who have been exposed to varying acts of homosexualism in different forms, from school, church, public, meetings, parties they are always bombarded by this h'omosexualism indoctrination and mind programming. Let them emphasize more on cure than this evident attempt to justisfy their pervasive s'exual yearnings or are there no stories of homosexuals who successfully left the habits and went back to being straight? What is being done to curb the fast spread of heterosexual people turning gay. Why should anyone be exposed to homo'sexualism against their will. How come there is a very positive depiction of homosexualism in the mainstream media- from hollywood movies to even political campaigns. Who is fulling who??

Obinoscopy:
@rhymz, I've been following your posts together with that of evilbrian and I'd say I'm impressed with you guys line of arguement although there are times you become sentimental and begin to attack his personality. But nevertheless I'm impressed.

I just wanted to reply to your analogy between the rights of homosexuals and that of pedophilles. Any intimate activity between an adult and a consenting child is seen as child abuse and is a punishable offence because the child is still young to know what could harm her and what will not. But two consenting homosexuals going to the unnatural act is okay provided they are adults. Prosecuting them tantamounts to infringing of their rights of association. The only time it would be right to arrest them is if there are evidence suggesting that all homosexuals r.ape people in their respective communities

Also read sebonzakura's latest post on the issue of pedophilles and its difference from homosexuality

I am not sure I have in any manner insult him as a person, whatever I have said is in the spirit of the debate. Anyway, if I have unknowingly insulted you, Mr Evil, I am sorry but please stop telling you careless about religion, people's culture and tradition, it is a careless statement that deserves some serious reprimand. People get killed when they go to a place and try to look pass things and act like they were some secular Robots of no social make up or influence. If you choose to ignore my way of life, tradition and cultural belief when you stay in my home, then you deserve whatever punishment I choose to mete to you.
Now let me move on to the point you were try to make about my analogy of a willing child and an adult. First, it is very important to note that adult age is subjective and relative according to country. In some country, adult age is 16, while in some the legal age is 18. So it is folly to argue that a child in this age bracket is incapable of knowing what is right from wrong or what is beneficial or harmful to them.
Also, how is having sex with a willing child of 16 (which can be termed an adult in some clime and a child in another) by a g'ay man more harmful than two men shagging eachother??
And prosecuting two "consenting animals, sorry, adults" indulging in an unnatural act is not what the bill proposes. It forbids any legal union( in the way of marriage)between two ho'mosexuals or any kind of association that promotes, encourages, depicts or entice people of the public ( in the way of forming a g'ay club, g'ay church, g'ay pub and so on) as all these kind of associations do not fall under the natural fundamental human rights of association.
Sebonzakura's post honestly is one of the low points of unintelligence if he can suggest that because it does not pose any security threat it is ok to let such a social vice to take root in Nigeria. Paedophilia, bestiality, incest and other social vices in this group do not pose any security threat as well but they are not condoled either. Let's learn to draw the line my friend and respect the way of life of a people.

Finland:
I was just saying that by the way, would u like government to control your social life?

of course there are certain aspect of your social life that need control and the constitution ensures that. If you like to booze till you die and then sit behind the wheels, the government will punish you for that if caught. If you like to administer alcohol to teenagers just so you can sleep with them, the government of course will control you. There is no such thing as absolute freedom to do what you like.

Evil Brain:
That is the exact opposite of what the constitution says. It guarantees freedom of thought and expression of ideas. There are no exceptions. If a gäy guy comes to try and entice you, you can tell him to shut up but you cant force him or punish him for speaking his mind. Maybe you should download and read the 1999 constitution before you post any more.

I've already explained several times why religion, culture and morality are irrelevant in this discussion so I'll just ignore that part of your post. And I've also covered minority rights and the abuse of majority power.

Nobody is forcing you to recognize gäys. You can continue not liking them if you want. You can even write something nasty about them on a T-shirt and wear it around (freedom of expression).

If you think someone singing or chanting something you don't like is a violation of your rights then you don't know the first thing about human rights and you shouldn't be posting here.

so in other words the constitution allows the expressions of unatural sexual habit in the open glare, are you serious? So what about those who fantasize about sleeping with animals, willing childrien that are curious about sex, people who rape to satisfy their sexual urge? What about paedophilia. Guy stop this zombie talk jare!! The fact you think religion, culture, tradition and moral standards are irrelevant shows how irresponsible your logic is- in thesame breath, how is it harmful to a willing 12yr old kid who is having sex with a ga'y man?? Yes, what makes paedophilia harmful if the kid is willing.
In 1999, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a report on child sex abuse saying that sexual relations between children and adults are "less harmful than believed" and might actually "be positive for willing children." How could trained psychologists, let alone anyone in their right mind, suggest that sex between adults and children could be positive for the children? Luckily there was a huge uproar throughout society about this absurd conclusion. As a result the APA backed down and acknowledged that there was a serious problem with the study and that they should have been more careful in publishing the report in the first place. That is is an example of how depraved the human mind can be, you MR evil brain is no any different. I have nothing to say to you at this point.

Finland:
And Talking about backdoor do you know some of these guys opposing this people do have backdoor with there girlfriends? But then nothing is wrong with that. Is there any difference between female's BehindBased and male's BehindBased?

that is not the crust of the argument. The fact is, anal sex has a very high chances to give you HIV AIDs than heterosexual sex. And I think it is dumb for anyone to argue that government has no say in social issues.

hercules07:
@rhymz and Alh

Their rights are already being infringed, they can not associate, and please you are not an authority on what is natural and what is not, evil brain has already done justice to that. I will keep repeating it, let them ban man-lover marriage, I do not care, but do not infringe on their rights as these same senators will wake up tomorrow to start infringing on my right.

you keep talking about rights which rights?? State them and let's argue them.
And what is natural about a man sticking his P'enis in the A'nus of another man? Is the A'nus meant for penetration? Do you know how medically unhealthy that is?? Or Are you in another way trying to tell me that there is something natural about h'omosexual acts?? Do you need google for that one too?

Evil Brain:
I'm glad you know what fundamental human rights are. I don't see what is ambigous or impracticable about them. Plenty of countries (including Nigeria off and on) have been pracicing them for decades without problems. So what if walking around näked is against your religion and values? As long as I do it in my own private premises, how is it your business? The same applies to gäys. Stop thinking about what they are doing in private and face your own life.


There's no double standard. Bigamy is a crime because it involves fraud and there are clear victims. The first wife gets lied to and cheated on. And the subsequent wives are made to think they are in valid marriages with all the associated legal protections when they really aren't.

Polygamy is fine by me as long as all parties involved are adults who know what they are getting into. I may not like it, but I'm not going to try get anyone imprisoned over it.

Plus other countries don't strip ploygamists of their fundamental human rights the way this bill tries to do the gäys. Your analogy is not analogous.

Nice try though. At least, you're attempting to make sense unlike so many others.

You obviously have not been following the crust of my argument if you think I care about what somebody does in the comfort of his privacy. Like Saga has said in another thread, we can't legislate what goes on in people's head but of course if he/she goes further with attempts to entice, encourage, explain or even show these very lewd thougts in away that it can help him convert other impressionable people then there is a very strong need to legislate it.
Before this bill, we had the sodomy law which we almost never use cos to a large extent it is archaic and does not reflect the situation of the present. Homosexualism like other social vices has negetive insidious effect, if we don'r creat pre-emptive laws like the one espoused by this bill, we will stand hands akimbo and watch our value system descend even lower than what is obtainable in the present west, the family structure will be the most affected, population demography will be so adversly affected that by the time we realize the dangers of such a tacit support, it will have been too late. A situation where h'omosexualism replaces religion, our moral values relegated to the new found individuality chant song and people being forced to recognize homosexualism even against what they are generally used to is as well an infringement on my right. What is important is that the decision is a reflection of what the Nigeria wants as regards this issues, everyone should respect this domimant right.

hercules07:
@rhymz

Freedom of expression does not mean going unclad and will stop that nonsense of someone's right stopping where another man's starts, if we are all guaranteed some freedoms, then we all have it equally, you can not deprive me and I can not deprive you, let the government ban same sex marriage but, they should not infringe on the fundamental human rights of man-lover people, that is what we are saying.

fundamental human rights as human beings or as animals. The last time I checked, there is no such thing as fundamental human rights for unnatural acts, association or cohabitation. As long as they stay within the limits of what their rights are and cover then there is no problem but if they choose to hide under the guise of human rights to propagate themselves in any way or form, they will be reminded that as long as their act is an unnatural one, they are not covered by any section of the constitution as it covers and talks in the context of natural acts.

@Poster
I realy will like to engage you on this issue if you have the time. A lot of people that drum support for these ho'mosexuals do not fully understand the danger that these guys portend in any society in the future. Do you know these guys have the highest infection rate of HIV and AIDs. The hom'osexual life style is an unhealthy one, the a'nus is not meant for penetration, every time a fellow man penetrates the anus of another man he increases the chances of bruising the thin wall lining in the anus which unlike that of a woman's v'agina-which is doublw walled thick- that of the a'nus isd one wall thick and can easily worn out, leaving the person easily exposed to HIV and AIDS. Is that the kind of life style we want to promote??