₦airaland Forum

@Kay_17,

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

You keep mistaking what is a right with what is a privilege. Slavery was not trampling on people's privileges but their rights.

In most these EU countries that do so, an exemption is often made to excuse religious rituals.

Under no circumstances must the State allow an institutional trampling of rights. It doesn't matter if it is a religious institution.

Reform is not always chaotic but liberating.

This sounds good but I will request you provide examples.

I didn't mean failed marriage, but what you feel about the institution of marriage is about.

In taking Social Studies classes in Naija, we were taught that the Nuclear Family is the smallest unit of the society. In other words, the building blocks of the society is the nuclear family. It therefore makes sense for the society to provide a special recognition to this unit because it depends on it for its long-term sustenance. That in my secular opinion is what marriage is all about.

Now given that this is all about the long-term viability of the society, I do not see why the privilege of a marriage license should be bestowed on a relationship that does not foster the perpetuation of the society. As someone pointed out earlier in this discussion, gay sex or marriage is a biological deadened. Biologically, that relationship is a failure because it does not provide anything towards the creation of the next generation of citizens. Why should the state then confer on this relationship a special status when we know that a widespread practice of such relationship is detrimental to the well-being of the society?

@Sagamite,

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.

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.

@Kay_17,

Polygamy is allowed in Nigeria.

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.

What your idea on the legal implication of a marriage?

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.

@Kay_17,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@Kay_17,

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!!

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.

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.

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.

@Manny4Life,

When you implied that the bill of rights was a privilege was when you stated that your RIGHTS are "GOD-GIVEN", humans, individual, govt or whatever cannot give you or confer rights to you. What does that imply? it means, any right not given to you by God or your creator was a privilege, like you alluded to. You also went ahead to quote the excerpt from the Declaration of independence about the rights endowed by the creator to prove your point. I tried explaining to you that the "Bill of Right" was created by men or should I say added was also fundamental, obviously, you weren't listening to me.

Yes, rights are God-given, not State given. The Bill of Rights was created by men not to grant men rights, but to protect the rights they already have. Codification was only done to ensure that they are not infringed upon. The law that keeps one person from murdering another was promulgated not to grant a person the right to life, but to protect a person's right to life. The right to life was God-given, but the State's actions and laws are made to protect that God-given right. Get it now?

@Manny,

Where did I say that the Bill of Rights are privileges as you charge. Please prove that or forever hold your peace. Again, here is what I said about the Bill of Rights:

"The Bill of Rights was instituted as a consequence of a group of people infringing on the rights of another. Those people have rights prior to the govt stepping in. The govt only came in to protect their rights. There is a big difference."

Where in the above does it imply by any stretch of the imagination that the bill of rights are privileges? I will not let you get away with wrong accusations based on your lack of comprehension.

@Manny4life,

I will leave you to your own delusion. You made the charge that I said the bill of rights are privileges. I in no way said, nor imply that. You made the charge, prove it by quoting me where I said it. Your attempt to save face because you can't prove your accusation is only making you look more ridiculous.

@Kay_17,

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??!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@manny4life,

Like I said, shame on you. You are trying so hard to justify an outright lie. I never for once said, nor anything I wrote imply that I felt the Bill of Rights was a privilege. In addressing the Bill of Rights, here is exactly what I wrote in response to you: "The Bill of Rights was instituted as a consequence of a group of people infringing on the rights of another. Those people have rights prior to the govt stepping in. The govt only came in to protect their rights. There is a big difference." Where in that statement did I ever imply that the Bill of Rights was a privilege? For your information, the bill of rights only codifies what the people already have. It did not create and grant them the rights.

Like I said, part of your problem is that you fail to assimilate what you read. The declaration of independence is clear in saying that rights are from God (Yes, I said God). The declaration makes a partial list. At no time did it ever say that the list was exhaustive. Now if you consider the tenth amendment, it clearly states that the govt can only exercise the powers delegated to it through the constitution. Every thing else is reserved within the power of the people. This corroborates everything I have said earlier!

@Manny4life,

I don't know what you are still doing here since you have declared you are going on a self-imposed exile. You have lost all credibility and should be ashamed of yourself. If you want me to continue this debate with you, I will ask that you substantiate your claim that I ever said that civil liberties are privileges. Failure to do so shows you are either ignorant and unable to assimilate what you read or that you are an outright liar. I need to know which of the two in order to determine how to proceed.

@Kay_17,

Marriage stems from the right to association and family life, consequently its a solemn agreement of matrimony between two persons. Its a human right and its an infringement on one's liberty if the State otherwise sets out to bar or restrict it.

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?

State laws on marriage regularize and outline the processes, and also protects the rights of others; thus Inbreeding, pedophilia is prohibited. First the anticipated rights of a child in the marriage is a concern of the State, while pedophilia is to protect the person of the minor. Bestiality lacks the requisite consent.

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.

The effect of the union is the reflection of the wishes of the married persons, such as that to be recognized as one.

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.

The reluctance to accept/recognize gay marriages is cultural, not constitutional.

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?

@manny4life,

I mentioned dissolving of govts in passing because in establishing the basis of the govt in the declaration of independence, the Founders clearly stated the supremacy of the people ahead of the govt. In other words, they wanted to make it clear that the govt.'s role is to serve the people and to protect their rights. The people gave the govt enumerated powers through the constitution. They have the power to take it away because they gave it. The people give the govt power not the other way around. By the way, you saying that the constitution gave power to the people is so dumb. The people came up with the constitution to limit what the govt can do to them. Even Obama acknowledges the fact that the constitution is full of what he calls "negative rights". It states what the govt may not do to the people and not declare what the govt has to do to/for them.

You want to sound intelligent but you just fall flat on your face. I wasn't referring to voting when I talked about people creating govt. There is a greater fundamental principle which is being alluded to. Go beyond the daily workings, and pay attention to the fundamental. That should straighten you up a bit.

I see your attempt to exit this debate based on a false inference. Where did I ever say that the bill of rights is a privilege? Please provide my quote here to back up your assertion if that is indeed true. It is clear you lack basic understanding of the terms that are being used, and I am not ready to school you on those. You will need to read some of the founders writings to understand this debate and deal with it using fundamental principles and not the daily workings.

@Manny4life,

I will try to untangle you from the jam you have put yourself. I think certain sentences betray your lack of understanding of this issue and I will address those directly.

YES, but Like seriously, I'm confused, isn't it the same Constitution that gave powers to the govt? Who drafted the Constitution that gave the govt the same enumerated powers to preserve and protect? GOD?

The citizens gave the govt the powers it has and can dissolve same govt at will. People (born with rights), precede the government which was instituted to protect those rights. Get that? The people already have rights before the govt was instituted. Governments don't give rights, they protect rights.

Mr. I just gave you the "Bill of Rights" which are unalienable and you're here telling me about driving and marriage?

The Bill of Rights was instituted as a consequence of a group of people infringing on the rights of another. Those people have rights prior to the govt stepping in. The govt only came in to protect their rights. There is a big difference.

Oh btw, the right to marry (pursuit for happiness) is a right.

Like I told you before, your rights end where mine begins. To claim that marriage is a right is to say that I will be infringing on your rights if I choose to not recognise your relationship. Taken a bit further, that means I must always approve of your relationships if I am to not infringe on your rights. Isn't that insane? Your pursuit of happiness must never infringe on my rights to pursue my happiness. The exercise of your rights infringes on my rights if I have to pay for it. This is what the gay community is asking for. They are saying that I have to subsidize their relationships in the pursuit of what they call their rights to marriage. Where is my right to not be burdened by you?

Again, person(s) cannot limit the govt, but case precedents has shown that the govt has tried to limit people's rights. For instance, ask yourself, how was the "Miranda Right" was created?

Of course Government, if left to itself will infringe on the rights of people. Why do you think we always call for limited govt? This is the wisdom behind enumerated powers - to check the tendency of the government to infringe on the rights it is meant to protect.

In other words, just because you have a right to liberty, why are people in Jails?

People are in jails because they infringe on the rights of others. If we are to go by your logic that marriage is a right, then everyone who does not recognise your marriage (homo or heterosexual), must be put in jail because they have infringed on your rights by not recognising your relationship. You do understand that what the advocates of gay marriage are asking for is to be recognised by the State. You have no right to demand that I give you a particular status.

Why do we have immigration? After all, immigrants living in the U.S. have those rights from their creator, YET, they have limited movement, they can't pursue happiness like others, they don't have the full liberty under the law, and you say they aren't limited?

Are you serious with this argument? People set up governments to protect their rights not that of other nations. Everybody may have God-given rights, but to protect those rights, people institute governments whose jurisdictions are limited to its borders. Again, enumerated!

@manny4life,

I guess that you are the one who doesn't or perhaps misunderstood what the quote said; it clearly said that they are endowed with "CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHT", certain being the key word and these are "human/natural rights". There are different types of rights, however, what we're talking about "right to marry", a legal right guaranteed by the Constitution, to preserve and protect. I'm glad you mentioned that part, but you never mentioned the "Bill of Rights" which are also unalienable YET created by human to preserve and protect, life and property. Or perhaps, you will try to convince me that the "Bill of Rights" is a privilege right?

You keep getting yourself in a bind. There is nothing like a privilege right. Your right is something you have just by being a human being. What the government is constituted to do is to protect those rights and not grant them. That is why the constitution only gives the government enumerated powers. If anything at all, it is the people that limit the government and not the other way around. Just like driving, marriage is a privilege and it is given to you only if you meet certain criteria. Which is why we are not allowing 10 year olds to marry. If marriage was a right, then the government must be infringing on the rights of teens who are denied the privilege of that status because of the criteria the government wants. Are you getting the difference now?

No you have the basic right created by creator which is to live, and be free and die, but your rights have limits without other legal rights. After all, just because you have a right to live, pursue for happiness in the U.S. don't mean that you will come here without following the legal binding rights.

Your rights are only limited to the extent that you begin to infringe on the rights of another. Laws are made to ensure you do not infringe on the rights of others. What the law does is protect the God-given rights, not issue them.

Kay 17: "God" could have meant Nature

So? If you've read any of the Founder's writings, they clearly refer to God, nature's God or just nature. The point being that rights are endowed by a higher power and not by government. What governments can give are privileges. It's a privilege for the govt to bestow special status on some relationships such as marriage. For all you know, the government can choose to not issue any marriage certificates to both hete- and homo-sexuals and it won't be infringing on anybody's rights.

Kay 17: Its rhetoric which expresses that fundamental rights accrue by just being human. That its an inherent property of man.

So why not extrapolate and apply that to the discussion, or better still apply it to Manny4life's outrageous assertion that rights are given to people by the State and not by their Creator.

@manny4life,

The U.S. Constitution is VERY CLEAR and made no mistake. Rights are not conferred upon, they are earned when has been achieved.

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Below is taken from America's Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

You have rights based on your creation not on the benevolence of a government.

@topic,

Rights are God-given. They are not conferred on people by individuals, groups or government. The marriage status is conferred by the government and therefore a privilege, not a right.

As the debate on the definition of marriage rages on, it is important to make this very important distinction. This debate has nothing to do with rights. It has everything to do with privileges!

@topic,

Can someone please explain to me how marriage is a right - whether homosexual or heterosexual for that matter.

There is nothing like the right to marry!!!!!

All this cursing is doing nothing but degrading the level of this debate. I will excuse myself from this forum if it continues.

@dayoknu,

In some parts of the world, there is a phenomenon referred to as temporary marriages. In this case, a guy keeps a woman around and sleeps with her till he is tired of the sex. He can then have the relationship annulled. These relatisonships last for as little as one night and usually not longer. Should we introduce same in the US and ask for it to be recognized as the regular marriage? Or should we ask that this be subsidized as well?

Sex between heterosexuals such as a man and a prostitute is also not recognized nor subsidized by the State (Is this infringing on their rights?). If the State must subsidize Jack and John's sexual activity, then it must also subsidize John's nightstand with Jezebbel! About time that the State start refunding 10% of John's expenses anytime he picks Jezebbel up along a dark alley in the dead of night!

@dayokanu,

Why should John and mary be subsidized and not John and Jack

Are they not under the same constitution? Dont they all have rights?

Like I said before, there is no right to marry. The State's choice to subsidize John and Mary is because of its recognition that the State will only be perpetuated when John and Mary cohabitate. Same does not apply to John and Jack!

@dayokanu,

Jack is f**cking John, Why should sagamite be offended

Sagamite should not be offended except if Jack and John insists that Sagamite subsidize their relationship through the State. Why should Sagamite's taxes go to pay for J&J's sexscapades when it holds no benefit to Sagamite or the State?

@topic,

There is nothing like the right to marry - for gays or heterosexuals. The State as a matter of preference (not constitutional requirement), has decided to give special recognition to the relationship between heterosexuals because it is deemed vital to the sustenance and well-being of the society. Of what good is the union of two same sexes to the State? If the State must recognise homosexual relationships, then it must offer same recognition to other kinds of sexual relationships. If you want to expand the definition of marriage, why stop at just this one?

@JeSoul,

this na dangerous road oh...you know love is gender-blind for libs, what if the govt. pairs Prez up with a she-male?

Knowing the liberal soul that Prez is, he will accept Uncle Sam's recommendation without any protest. Afterall, why should he discriminate? Discrimination is an evil republican tendency and pres will have none of it. Whether male, female, she-male or he-goat , you can expect pres to be the loyal subject to limitless government intrusion. Afterall, an affront against the govt is an affront against God.

I wonder if Pres will also let the govt loose on his enstranged girlfriend. Why should she have the luxury to jump from one guy to the other while the 99% can't do that? Her beauty and seductive ways must be punished because it is an affront on those who cannot even manage to woo and keep a mate. This is injustice of the highest order and Obama must come in to level the playing field. Since he cannot make the ugly babes good looking (or bust the budget trying with free plastic surgeries for all), the cheaper alternative is to make Pres' estranged babe ugly. I propose that Obama give this lady one of them Ibadan tribal marks to level the playing field!!!

@Pres-elect,

Just so as to disagree with me, you took my words out of context. I should have been more mindful of how this could have been misinterpreted when I said Zimmerman was innocent. In the larger context though, what I said is that Zimmerman could yet be proven innocent in a court of law and it will be a double tragedy if he really is. The fact is that his life would never remain the same. He's got a bulls-eye on his back (the real one, not the Sarah Palin kind ), and he is a marked man for life. Our justice system presumes innocence until proven guilty, but the actions of the past few days have compromised that foundation. NBC, ABC and now CNN have come out to apologize for mis-representing the facts of this case. Unfortunately, that apology may have come too late as Zimmerman can no longer live in public even if acquitted by the justice system.

On another matter, I don't know why you stress yourself over finding a suitable mate. Like everything else you liberals like, why don't you demand that your government legislate to get you a wife. After all, getting married is a right and it does't matter how many other people's rights are trampled for you to get what you think you deserve. Besides, if you can't afford the dowry and wedding costs (on that minimum wage), you have a right to demand that tax payers pay for it. What say ye?!

@JeSoul,

There is no space between us with regard to this issue. That I come out to request for people to look at the facts does not mean I condone Zimmerman's actions. No matter how we look at this, it is a tragedy and the tragey is being compounded by the actions of the many uninformed zealots.

There is a larger issue here and I have been cursed and called names just becuase I was trying to bring attention to it. I don't usually agree with Juan Williams but I do in this case. He is absolutely right to call attention to the hypocrisy and the feigned outrage of the so-called Black leaders in America. I have no doubt in my mind that they wouldn't raise a voice if Zimmerman was Black or Trayvon White. This situation just plays into the template and narrative that supports their political agenda. What a shame indeed!!!!!!!

zolzlolz: I can't believe Tayo D

Let me tell you what I can't believe. That so far, I am the only objective one on this forum. I am asking for due proces of the law to play itself out and others are seeking jungle justice.

armyofone: Tayo D,
I'm not one to be driven by some cheap frenzy.
Let the court tell him he is not guilty and should go instead of the police.

That the guy was released by the Police does not mean he is free from prosecution. Tayvon's family or anyone else could still file a criminal or civil lawsuit against Zimmerman. The bottomline is that the Police can only hold you in custody for so long. They either charge you if they have evidence that you've committed a crime or they let you go. They obviously did the later because they do not have sufficient evidence to detain Zimmerman. If however in the future they have such evidence, then they can arrest and charge him appropriately.

armyofone: you should a republican strategist

This has nothing to do with politics. It is simply allowing the justice system to work without undue influence. During all that frenzy brought about through misinformation, Sharpton accused the Police of not doing any investigation nor even cordoning off the murder scene with yellow ribbons. Problem is that he lied. Part of the police report released two days ago proved otherwise. In the meantime, his misinformation has set many drones into a frenzy all across the globe and created divisions and enmity amongst neighbors. That is nothing more than compounding the already tragic event.

@A.D.M.,

You're a fool and you're a waste of space. You're the one who's been fed bad info. This case has nothing to do with black-on-black crime. Again, apples and bok choy. And I can create links showing blacks do care about what goes in their neighborhoods.

I can see you have anger management issues. Despite ignoring your first verbal assualt, you decided to follow through with another. Is this how you received your education (if you have any)? I have addressed all the points you and others have raised and showed how you are venting over misinformation. My expectation is that a rational person would simmer down and re-evaluate his position based on those new information. It is obvious that you are no ratinal person and I do not see a need to continue wasting time on you.

Please feel free to ignore my postings in the near future. I will not be brought down to your base level of character asasination and incoherent rantings.

@armyofone,

Tayo, mine is if it were a white guy who was killed, do you think they will just let the black guy to home same day?

I cannot answer that question because it is hypothetical and there is no data to back up the insinuation. If the law is followed to the letter, there is every possibility that the Black guy will go scott free if there is no basis to detain him. Zimmerman never asked for a lawyer an was willing to make a statement and aswer questions. Guilty people are not likley to do such.

My only problem is why not do the same to Zimmerman?
oh you are right to kill a thief, well done bruv, go home/bed. case closed. Not so right you know.

Zimmerman has every constitutional and God-given right to defend himself if he felt his life was in danger. The truth is that if really Trayvon was the assailant and he succeeded in killing Zimmerman, this case will not receive the national attention it is getting.

The bottom line is this. The entire nation has been driven to a freny because of innacurrate information provided by networks with agendas. We need to put faith in our law enforcers and criminal justice system.

Let Zimmerman, like every accused have his day in court and not intimidate the system into punishing someone who may be innocent. Are you guys happy that the Black Panther have now put a bounty on him? No one is saying anything about that nor is Obama condemning that situation. This again is why I said Obama shows a lack of good judgement in geting into this situation. His silence on the Black Panther issue suggests his approval of such extra-judicial activity. He's only got a lot to lose.