₦airaland Forum

ghostofsparta: Stop twisting my point in order to appear smart, assess the credibility of the message and stop attacking the messenger

I've not twisted anything. I've assessed the credibility of the message and found the message to be worthless.

ghostofsparta: Yes it was engineered so was HIV/AIDS, but no one can state precisely which particular date. Read it all here

No thanks. I'd rather stay away from conspiracy theory sites.

ghostofsparta: Na wa o! People can twist things o, it's not my evidence and they are facts posted on the internet for you to read. By the way, where in my analysis have I mentioned Libya, or where in that link is Libya stated or simplistically put in the ridiculous way you've remixed it?

Are you seriously telling me that you'll believe anything you read online? I looked up the company on Wikipedia and it talks about Libya there. Read it.

ghostofsparta: No, that's not even a counter point, the question you should ask yourself is why haven't there been any single case of any black in the history of precolonial Africa such that individual died of something so terrible blood was seen coming out of the orifices and people got infected massively.

Actually it is a serious counter point. The fact that you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it wasn't happening. Secondly, have you ever heard of Lassa fever? Or leptospirosis? The fact that you were ignorant about viruses doesn't mean that they weren't there.

ghostofsparta: I see no sense in this reply.

The sense is that you're not going to put your money where your mouth is.

Seriously take a look at the other topics on that site. Looks like that guy doesn't even think humans went to the moon. You really need to take a closer look at your sources.

ghostofsparta: Ofcourse not, I just cited Bloomberg's re-quote from WHO, and didn't you read the part where I said "..is informed by connecting several dots together..."

Besides re-read the post all through because it is modified with new information. And again, this WHAT YOU ARE NOT TOLD video attempts to prove that this particular virulent Ebola strain which isn't the ZEBOV is actually airborne to which sound rebuttals were given as can be read from the image below

To be clear, you're saying that this virus was engineered in the 1970s and your evidence is that OTRAG A German rocket propulsion company had a test facility that was closed down and later moved to Libya? Is it possible that we didn't know about such strange diseases in the 1970s because the transport and communication systems weren't as advanced as they are today?

If you're willing to volunteer yourself to be tested by these traditional/indigenous root workers then go right ahead and let the rest of us use the best available technology.

Wow. You deduced all that from the fact that Ebola's origin is unknown from the Bloomberg article?

Oh oh. Here comes a lie that refuses to die.

It looks like many people who have commented so far didn't read the OP.

From the OP,

Chukwu who had attended Monday's meeting did not turn up for today's session and did not send any representative, a situation which angered the lawmakers.

The health minister himself was present at Monday's meeting but why was Monday's meeting rescheduled?

He said the committee after holding a partial meeting with stakeholders on Monday decided to reschedule it as finance minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala; Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Anyim Pius Anyim; Head of Service, Alhaji Bukar Goni Aji and Director-General of the Budget Office, Bright Okogu were all absent and did not send any representative.

Why were these people initially absent? Why aren't they being threatened with being arrested?

Or is it open season to dump on doctors? Keep in mind the fact that many of these reps don't get their treatment in Nigeria.

Rayhut: please those that know the source of supernatural powers should tell me,I want to know the source because I have seen where somebody uses a basket to hold water without the water leaking through the holes.If there is no special powers from the above either from God or demons,what is source of the power

What makes you think there are supernatural powers?
Take a look at shows like say Dynamo Magician Impossible.

Deep Sight: Because they naturally can. If however they sought to adopt a child, the social officers would inquire after their means of livelihood. But your h.omo.se.xual would-be parents naturally could not - - -> unless so empowered by the laws that you seek to advocate. And of course, your position is that if you were an adoption officer, refusing to give a child to a g.ay couple will amount to trampling on their rights, but would not amount to trampling on the rights of the child to a natural home with a natural parental setting.

Ooh a beautiful example of the naturalistic fallacy. The fact that something occurs in nature doesn't mean it is good. And I see that you're determined to miss a point even after it has been presented to you on a platter. Why should the fact that two people can have children by sexual intercourse mean that it is a good idea to do so? After all, 12 year old girls can have intercourse and get pregnant. Does this mean it is a good idea? After all the intercourse was "natural". That is the question you need to answer. If a heterosexual couple that cannot have children can be allowed to adopt, then a homosexual couple should also be allowed to do so. Secondly, are you aware that there are homosexual people who divorce their heterosexual partners in order to live with their homosexual partner? What do you think should happen to the children in such a setting?

Deep Sight: I forget, of course, that according to you, husband and husband is a perfectly natural parental setting. You do not know, or will pretend not to know, the fact that men and women bring different parental attributes to holistic parenting. You would of course pretend not to know the
importance of the mother figure as distinct from the father figure, in a child's psychology

When Mr. Deep Sight gets his degree in human psychology, then I will be willing to consider his opinion on this issue. Till then, you're welcome to provide proper scientific evidence for these opinions of yours.

Deep Sight: What is sad is your PATHETIC indifference to the rights of infants, simply on account of your desperation for the rights of the ho.mose.xual to impose his perversion even on the innocent and those without a choice: like infants.

What is sad is your pathetic indifference to the rights of parents on account of your desperation to deny humans their rights. Looks like this perversion is in the eye of the beholder. Last time I checked, infants of poor people are also innocent and have no choice to be born to poor parents. Why should these parents be allowed to inflict such problems on their infants. Maybe you should advocate for sterilizing poor people.

Deep Sight: You should do a survey of people over 18, and ask them if they had a choice at birth, to be born to and raised by Dad and Dad or Dad and Mum, what choice they would have made. If the survey returns overwhelmingly in favor of the latter, then you should know that you are doing some injustice to infants and their futures - at a point and time when they could not speak or choose for themselves. What nature has NOT chosen to make possible - 2 men having a child, you impose on them. But no matter. It's all subjective. The rights of the men must be protected, but not the natural rights of the child, abi?

Human rights aren't determined by surveys of people over 18. Secondly, your results would still be invalid because no one actually has enough information to be able to make such a decision. Hell, I can tell you now that many people would rather be raised by a same sex couple than by no one in a orphanage.

Deep Sight: This, the right of infants, is the sole reason for my unmitigated disgust at you.

Aww the emotional "think about the children" argument. It still won't work because you're obviously not thinking about these infants. What makes you think that a middle class same sex couple aren't the better option for an orphan than remaining in an orphanage or being adopted by a heterosexual couple that would abuse them?

Deep Sight: I am not going to take up a proper academic discussion with you or the reprehensibly disgusting pervert wiegraf on this matter: just leave it. I have expressed my disgust and will do nothing more: live with it - after all, my opinion cannot conceivably be important to you, can it?

You won't because you're intellectually incapable of it. Your ignorant stupidity knows no bounds and it is your main stumbling block. Though I see that you've tried to present a serious argument above but as my responses show, you've failed once again.

Deep Sight: And o, when will you be tired of "lawyer this, lawyer that"? Grow up already. I have not ever anywhere stated that I am correct on an issue or that I am making a logical point simply because of my professional calling.

I probably won't get tired of it because you're trying to make a logical point while ignoring your professional calling. It is like a banker trying to make a logical point of money disappearing from the bank vault due to voodoo. You're the one who needs to actually sit back and take a look at the implications of what you're saying rather than simply wailing and gnashing your teeth at me that you're disgusted.

NativeBoy: I do believe I've made final point and I'm content to let this thread end.

As the saying goes, "When there is no God, everything is permissible". This is the point that many serious atheists cannot help but recognize. That ultimately there is no moral standard without an objective source. If man gets to define what his good or evil, what happens when another man disagrees? If one society sees something as good or evil, what happens when another society disagrees?

Actually, when there is a God, everything is permissible. That is why you think genocide and commanding genocide is sometimes permissible even when you allow for an omnipotent and omniscient God. Just so you know, man evaluates what is good, evil or neutral. That is why we have laws when we come together in large groups and social mores when we're small tribes.

If God sees something as good or evil, what happens when my society disagrees?

NativeBoy: Even Richard Dawkins (hero to many atheists) had to concede that when you have a true atheist mindset, there is no such thing as good and evil. Here's an excerpt from his book, "River Out of Eden"

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.

This is why context and attention is important. From the perspective of the universe, he is right. But as I'm sure you'll admit, humans don't operate from the perspective of the universe.

Deep Sight: ^^^ Leave it. FYI, he holds that all morality is subjective. His cohort, the atheist wiegraf, argues with substantial support from other atheists that even mass murder is not instrinsically evil or wrong. With that, think twice before wasting your energy arguing on something as little as ho.mose.xuality.

Mr. man please go to sleep. Take some sleeping pills if you find it difficult to sleep at night because some people you dislike can get married.

NativeBoy: Blacks were viewed as chattel prior to the emancipation and afterward they were still viewed as an inferior race. As a result, blacks could not possess the human rights that whites had. I'm sure you'll agree that this isn't the same issue with ssm.

Still wrong. Viewing someone as being inferior doesn't deny them human rights. It is what you do based on that view that is the denial. And it in fact is the same issue with same sex marriage. If they aren't being viewed as inferior, why are they being denied the right to marry another adult they choose?

NativeBoy: Of course people of different races can marry because the institution of marriage is blind to race. It isn't blind to gender since marriage is concerned particularly with sex and producing offspring. It is implicit in the institution. It isn't about "Who am I to say what marriage is...". Marriage is what it has been since the beginning of time. It is an anthropological and sociological truth. Couples unable to conceive are the exception that shows that the rule exists. Their marriage is not nullified since the desire is there. For those who don't want children, the potential is still there.

Marriage wasn't always blind to race. That is my point. You declare that the aim of marriage is sex and producing offspring and I disagree with that assertion. People marry for many other reasons other than sex or producing offspring besides, people don't have to be married to have sex or produce offspring. This of course means that it isn't implicit in the institution. It is about who you are to declare the aim of marriage because marriage hasn't been since the beginning of time. It isn't an anthropological or sociological truth.

What rule are you talking about? If the marriage isn't nullified due to the presence of a desire for children, then same-sex marriage too can be the exception that according to you, proves the rule. How can the biological potential be there in a couple where both parties have been sterilized?

NativeBoy: SSM cannot produce offspring and thus do not fit into the institution of marriage that mandates a father and mother for every child since they came together to make that child. A child only gets the potential for a father and mother through heterosexual union. Otherwise you have to argue that neither a mother or father is necessary for the development of a child. A tough task indeed since there is no where in the world where people don't bemoan a child that has an absent parent.

It looks like you're just making things up now. Where does this mandate come from? Who says a widow or widower cannot raise a child? Having an absent parent is different from having two parents that are present.

NativeBoy: This is one if the great wonders of life on earth: that the understanding of the marriage institution, it's purpose is universal. Only now are we trying to change it.

Looks to me like you're merely making things up to suit your preconceived notions.

NativeBoy: Genocide isn't considered good in the bible. Nevertheless, there must be judgment. God judges and indeed it is ugly but there must be judgment. However, it is the last thing God does. Before judgment he shows mercy and provides a way of repentance. It's like being in class. Getting a failing score isn't considered good by the teacher and the teacher isn't a bad person for giving out a failing score. Receiving a failing score depends entirely on the student.

Are you seriously comparing a genocide to someone failing a class test?

I said according to the Bible, God's command that people commit genocide was good. You're trying to justify it as being a good judgement. I'm willing to show you that it isn't a good judgement for an omnipotent and omniscient God to make. If genocide is sometimes justifiable, then how do you know that any other genocide committed today can't be justified using that same argument?

Deep Sight: Some sickening fallacies and assumptions up there. ... as though those without a sufficient means of livelihood are allowed to adopt ...thats on the s.illy point on poverty....and also assumptions that a normal couple could be abusive and a h.omose.xual one loving. Who assumes this kind of nonsense. Who can tell? Lol, as though thats even the discussion.

In your ignorant rambling, you've forgotten that poor people are allowed to have children. That is the point on poverty and on abusive relationships. The fact that you're stupidly ignorant doesn't help you.

Deep Sight: Anyway, I have no stomach to engage such filth as you on a proper discussion on this matter. Let me just go away because if I dont I may just commit suicide from disgust at myself for even belonging to the same species as you and your ilk.

Aww another sign that you have no serious arguments just you foolishly thinking that as a lawyer, your emotional outbursts help you make a serious argument.

Deep Sight: Of course I feel more embarrased at your posts. Enjoy.

Another evidence of a lack of an argument and an inability to think up a rebuttal.

Deep Sight: What possible response could I have for the repugnance of that which you espouse?

Another childish emotional outburst. Try to grow up a bit.

Deep Sight: Tell me, what? I can only inform you that my shock and distaste for your stance has to do with only one issue and one issue only- the rights of orphaned and un-spoken-for children and infants who are subjects for adoption. I see no point in arguing that solitary point with you. . . Since you hold that no morality whatsoever should exist and that all morality is strictly subjective (and yes, this is the implication of your arguments on moral subjectivity).

Another glaring absence of an argument. Rather than trying to put words and ideas into my mouth, try to actually form an argument and watch me address it.

Deep Sight: You are despicably more concerned about the right of a h.omose.xual couple to pervert all notion of home and family than you are about the rights of the unspoken for infant who will have no say in being thrust into such an upbringing in circumstances markedly unnatural and perverse of a normal mother - father home with the unspeakable psycological and social damage attendant thereto, not to speak of damage to se.xual psycology. People as morally bankrupt and hypocritical as you will condemn heterose.xual parents for something like exposing their na.kedness to their yound children, and argue feverishly that same young children suffer no damage from seeing Daddy and Daddy kissing around the house during their impressionable years.

Another unintelligent paragraph. What was the right of the infant born to a drug addicted mother? Or the infant born into crushing poverty? You really need to work on identifying your emotional reaction and realizing that it is causing you here to form arguments so childish that I think you should be embarrassed to be spouting them as someone with more than a week's post Law School experience in the law.

Deep Sight: What do you want me to say to you? I have zilch against g.ay rights... I fully support the notion that they must be treated fairly and are free to engage their de.viant lusts. In fact, for me they are free to live together, have thwir relationahips and all. I draw the line at marriage only because of its legal implications on the matter of adoption. And anybody, like you, and the hideous pervert and moral slime wiegraf, who cannot fathom the grave evil done to an infant by entrenching him, choiceless, into such a forced perverse upbringing, is and remains the most despicable low and filthy.

According to you, those children who were born into families and were abused till they died would be better off than children adopted by a loving homosexual couple. How about a situation where one of the biological parents was homosexual and decided to live openly as a homosexual? The inanity of your response is just baffling and I feel embarrassed for you.

NativeBoy: 1. One of the erroneous arguments is equating lifestyle with the the struggle to seen as human. Is anyone saying homosexuals aren't human? No. But black people were viewed as sub-human, three-fourths human to be exact. As such they could not have the rights of "full" humans. They can't use the same bathroom as whites, can't go to school, etc. Even after the Emancipation Proclamation, this idea still permeated society. This isn't the same climate the homosexuals find themselves in. Ask yourself this question: did the black man have to fight to be viewed as a human in Africa? Or the Asian in Asia? No. You have human rights simply by being a human and by others recognizing you as such. Now is marriage? Marriage is an institution that by its definition exists to bring the opposite sexes together for the purpose of procreation and child nurturing. For every child a father and mother. This is what the marriage institution is. Please read up on anthropology and sociology if you don't believe me. This argument about marriage being a private personal relationship between two people is a new one that has just become popular and cool to say. It suffers from many flaws and isn't accurate anthropologically or sociologically.

No black people weren't viewed as three-fourths human and during the Civil Rights Movement, it isn't that they were viewed as sub-human, but that people wanted the races to be segregated. It would also have prevented inter-racial marriage. Shouldn't people of different races be able to marry?

Where did you get this definition of marriage that you're using? Who are you to declare what the purpose of marriage is? Is a marriage between people who don't want children or who cannot have children therefore invalid or useless?

You read up on anthropology and sociology and let me know the sources of your claims. You would also do well to realize that anthropology and sociology differ with different cultures.

NativeBoy: 2. How should witches be treated? Well, it depends on the actions of the witch. Treating homosexuals with respect and dignity in no way means that they can marry since implicit in the definition of the marriage institution is the standard of opposite sexes coming together to procreate and raise offspring. The marriage institution is blind to lifestyle choices/orientation.

No it isn't implicit in marriage that they have to be opposite sexes. You merely say so because you want the status quo to remain. If the institution is blind to sexual orientation, then there is no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be able to get married.

NativeBoy: 3. I really don't know how you concluded that there is no good or bad in Christianity. You'll have to explain that further. If the definition is allowed to be changed, then nothing stops me from marrying my sister(s), etc. After all i'm in a personal and private relationship with them. Biologically and sociologically, it is an error. And what if we agreed to not bear children?

If genocide is acceptable as being a good command in Christianity, then I think one can reasonably conclude that Christianity isn't a good source of differentiating between good and evil.
What stops you right now from marrying your sister if you can marry another woman? After all, you're in a personal and private relationship with them.

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

What are the erroneous arguments? Actually, the similarities are glaringly obvious that I wonder how so many people miss it. Human rights isn't stopping consenting adults from getting married.

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

Out of curiosity, how should witches be treated? Has it occurred to you that treating homosexuals with dignity and respect includes respecting their rights to get married?

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

Right and wrong already have no meaning according to Christianity. How do the arguments offered for homosexuality justify incest given the fact that heterosexuality is supported?

TV01: You forgot to add troll . He lends nothing except catty remarks and pained outrage.


TV

If you could read, you'd have seen the arguments and direct rebuttals to your assertions.

TV01: No it's not. The term is a contrivance. As it's not really about rights, it's about forcing those who view the homosexual lifestyle negatively, to accept and endorse it. And by state fiat. Debosky got it right - even if unintentionally - when he spoke about "gay marriage" being a way to validate homosexuality".

Of course. Civil rights wasn't about rights, it was about forcing those who viewed the black lifestyle negatively to accept and endorse it.

Do you really not see how ridiculous your statement is?

TV01: Which in a sense turns your argument on it's head and exposes that contrivance.

State intervention in relationships is exactly what liberterians and those espousing "individual freedoms" do not want. The ideology demands that people are free to live as they want, the only provisos being adult consent and no harm? to anyone. Which is what you have implicitly stated at the last "...to live as they choose".

Is there something wrong with this view when it comes to marriage?

TV01: Even in Africa, people are pretty much free to do so. The push for "gay marirage", is not about rights or freedoms, it's about normalising the homosexual lifestyle. It's about state endorsement and legally forced support. Even for those who don't agree with it.

Actually, it is about rights and freedoms. Simply denying that fact doesn't make your claim true.

TV01: And that "individual freedom" and right to "live as one chooses" does not extend to those who don't accept or endorse the the homosexual lifestyle. And therein lies the rub and the source of conflict.

No one is being asked to become homosexual. They're being asked to allow homosexuals to live their lives as they see fit.

TV01: I want the freedom and the right to raise my children as I see fit. That means introducing them to sexuality at a time and in a fashion I deem appropriate.

It means, teaching them that the natural and obvious complimentarity of the male/female pairing within a committed marital relationship is the healthiest, safest and most rewarding.

It means educating and steering them clear of the self-loathing, guilt, depression, substance abuse and self-harm that typically accompanies the homosexual lifestyle.

All of which will be threatened if we socially endorse homosexuality via gay marriage.


TV

How does allowing homosexuality stop you from teaching your children whatever you want even when what you're teaching them is wrong? As Louis C. K once pointed out, you want some people to be denied their rights because you can't talk to your own children?

Deep Sight: ^^^ I'll pass. Enjoy yourself.

I see. You really had no argument or thoughts to contribute just demonstrating your outrage by ranting. As a lawyer, you should have learned how to present an argument and evidence supporting your case rather than just shouting and raging.

I'm still here whenever you choose to try to think and contribute to the discussion.

Deep Sight: ^^^ People not impacted by their actions? Are you out of your mind? Kids they adopt would not be 'impacted by their actions??'

Good grief.

What is this impact you're so scared of?

Deep Sight: ^^^ You are filthy, perverse, wretched, disgusting, without any ethics or morals whatsoever, and the lowest minded scoundrel in existence if you would subject innocent children to such a raising.

So much bloviation because you're too incompetent to formulate a reasonable argument. The fact that your disgust meter is turned up to 22 doesn't mean you've used your brain in a sensible way to make an argument.

Deep Sight: Not surprising anyway. Since you and your reprobate perverted ante diluvian bovine recidivists do declare against the existence of morality.

Punk stop crying and think up a cogent argument.

Deep Sight: You are frankly the lowest dirtiest most repulsive human being I could ever conceive.

Why thank you. I guess every other person you'll ever encounter after me would be better human beings than you.

Deep Sight: Swine. Piece of sh1t.

Come back when you're grown up enough to think rather than rage impotently.

Sagamite: Shut up!

Looks like we've seen one too dull to communicate.

TV01: @Redlyn, @thehomer, @debosky, @wiegraf, @All,

It’s obvious that we have two diametrically opposed and pretty much entrenched positions here. And in terms of agreement at least, an impasse. In fact, there’s little if any middle ground. And thinking about it, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

No it isn't a bad thing especially because you're wrong.

TV01: I believe marriage is primarily about the utility to society. Creating a supportive framework around the procreative potential of the male/female pairing is the reason marriage has come into being, and across pretty much all cultures. Marriage is the unquestionably best setting - and at the least cost to society - for raising children. It is axiomatically male/female, as anything else means its essence is lost.

Your belief is deeply erroneous because a society is formed for people people aren't born for the sake of the society. If procreation was the aim of marriage, then you have to stop infertile people from getting married. Misusing the concept of an axiom doesn't help you in any way. It simply demonstrates the weakness of your argument.

TV01: This notwithstanding the host of other benefits, including mutual love and support, companionship, shared family ties and history. The traditional family serves societal well-being and “inter-connectedness” in a way no other relationship does. That is why it is rightly endorsed and rewarded by the state.

Who says homosexual relationships don't have these other benefits you've listed here?

TV01: In response, I have heard arguments about equality and comparisons to the black civil rights struggle. There have been rejoinders abut “ validation” and “sameness”. None of which I believe bear real scrutiny, or are even about marriage per se. All focusing on the wants and desires of a self-identified minority. And all of which I have repeatedly and consistently rebutted.

Actually, those arguments are about marriage and about the rights members of a society have. You haven't rebutted any of those arguments successfully.

TV01: So in as much as it does happen, all we can really do is wait and see. Will it have a deleterious effect on society? Will “homosexualising” marriage make it effectively redundant? Will attempts to legally sanitise what many consider abominable or at least immoral actually work? Will state sanction end this discussion? Will legal sanctions against those in disagreement lead to conflict and a backlash? I guess we’ll see.

Looks like you're misusing the word "redundant" here too. You should try to use words as they're used in the language you're using to communicate.

TV01: I’m a Christian and unrepentantly opposed to what is clearly portrayed as sinful in the biblical narrative. And like all sound biblical doctrines, the practical outworking of this error are and will be clear to see.

The Bible also says it is sinful to work on the Sabbath, sinful to allow witches to live and sinful to wear clothes of mixed fabrics. Maybe it isn't sound doctrine or we've just discovered that they were erroneous.

TV01: I’m a father, ready to go to great lengths to best raise and nurture my children. And no, all things being equal, I won’t ever believe that two men or two women could that better than their biological parents.

We're glad to know that human rights don't rest on your personal beliefs. I guess you're also against any adoption since children raised by adoptive parents aren't being raised by their biological parents. I also wonder what you'll say to parents who abuse their children by sacrificing them to some God or who are willing to slit their throats on behalf of some God.

TV01: I think this one will run and run.


Best
TV

It'll continue until it goes the way mixed-race marriages have gone.

Sagamite: You are a foool!

Fools like you are the main problem to stopping this filth in society.

Now listen carefully and jot this down in your notebook:

"The minute you take a position to say nothing is wrong with homosexual actions and lifestyle, the minute you say it should be decriminalised, that is the minute you have lost ground to say they cannot elect a lifestyle that is interpreted as normal. That is the beginning of a journey of loss of any arguments that homosexuals cannot do A or B, just as normal people can".

Mugus like you are the type that made Western countries gradually creep to where they are now in terms of this rubbish. The mugus that want to think they have Avant-garde thinking but their mental logical compass is crap! Or are just plain Oyinbo-is-always-right mugus!

Do you know how to formulate an argument? Rather than simply shouting out insults, calmly state your argument and support it with evidence. Simply shouting out insults doesn't help you.

TV01: Huh? And that is the states job? And it needs to reward them as a sign of that validation? And it also needs to redefine marriage to do so?

So what is the state's job? What reward are you talking about that citizens shouldn't get? Who says it is a redefinition?

TV01: There are no real "people minorities". No exceptions are required except for children and possibly the vulnerable. Human rights are for all, no other "rights types" required.

The right "to marry" remains available to all, subject to what marriage is. What is being asked, is a right to re-define marriage just because of how some chooses to be s3xually intimate. So what this is, is the minority deciding for the majority, as they are re-defining marriage just too suit them. Tyranny by the minority over the majority.

Would the right to marry be available to an interracial couple if marriage were defined as only being between members of one race? This is why I ask you what you think is the redefinition.

TV01: That's besides the point. Do they or an opposite sex couple lack fullness because they are not married?

No that is the point. If two people don't want to get married, what then is the point of asking if they should have the rights of married people?

TV01: Yes, because if there is no reason to - no benefit or cost - the state does not get involved to endorse, regulate, or reward personal relationships.

You're deeply confused. I asked you why the society should benefit and you say the state should benefit otherwise it shouldn't endorse, regulate or reward relationships. My question is: why should the society benefit in the first place? Not what the state should be able to do.

TV01: Any orientation or preference anyone cares to name. Why should "fullness" not be ascribed and state endorsement/rewardgs given to Paedophiles or zoophiles? What of Polygamists or polyamourists?

Why shouldn't this "fullness" be ascribed to paedophiles, zoophiles, polygamists and polyamorists now that we have heterosexual marriages?

TV01: And nobody has every been asked their orientation or preference as a pre-requisite to getting married. So, homosexuals are full and complete and can marry -just like everyone else - a member of the opposite sex!

Why should homosexuals be given leave to re-define marriage just to suit their sexual preferences? Especially when it ceases to be what it implicitly is, or serve the main purpose for which it arose.

How is it a redefinition? Who are you to declare what the purpose of marriage is?

TV01: That is simply disingenuous. It is lost because it is axiomatically between a male/female pair. Why do you insist it being about "two", which is also axiomatic, but not about opposite sexes? If any of the premises can be varied to suit differing orientations or preferences, then why not all?


TV

No it isn't axiomatic. You should look up the meaning of that word because you're misusing it and that leads to your statement being devoid of meaning.

TV01: 1. So, it's not about marriage, it's about validating the homosexual orientation & lifestyle?

It is about validating people.

TV01: 2. It's a fallacy to term this "society'" doing, as nowhere SSM has been enacted, has it been by referendum. Always by political/judicial activism.

Well, civil rights weren't enacted by referendum but by political/judicial activism. I guess we should always let the majority decide on whether or not minorities should have rights that they (majority) possess.

TV01: 3. What of non-committed homosexual couples? Do they somehow lack fullness as people? Or even non-committed hets?

Do they want to get married?

TV01: 4. Why does society have to "reward" as well as endorse?

You're the one who keeps talking about some benefits to the society when it comes to marriage. Have you asked yourself why the society must have a benefit?

TV01: 5. What of other sexualities or orientations, should their "fullness" not be acknowledged and endorsed by re-defining marriage to include them?

What other orientations do you have in mind that don't come up with regards to heterosexual marriage?

TV01: Not that anyone has claimed that homosexuals are not "full - or complete - people".

That is what you claim when you say they shouldn't be able to get married since "full or complete people" can get married.

TV01: I personally can't help viewing it as grasping and somewhat odd to suggest that re-defining marriage out of all meaning is a way, let alone the best way of endorsing homosexual fullness.


TV

How is the meaning of marriage lost? It is still between two people and is still recognized.

TV01: Pathetic straining.

Marriage is not "heterosexual"

Can Sodomites think with anything other than their g3nitalia?

I guess female homosexuals are just fine by you.

If marriage can also be homosexual, then what is your complaint?

Can heterosexuals think with anything other than their Instruments?

TV01: At least my brain wasn't prevented from getting to my colon by an alien tallywhacker taking up residence !


TV

Since you accept that your brain is in your colon, I see no reason to continue this discussion with you. Let me know when your brain is out of your colon.

I wonder who it was that declared her to be the world's ugliest woman.

Let's be clear about something here. If her genetic illness was something that could be treated, we can be sure that some mere humans would have worked on treating it. It looks to me like another situation of God deliberately allowing her to be born with a genetic illness for nothing she had done.

Enigma: This post above is entirely misconceived and you have completely missed the point altogether. Let me demonstrate in very simple terms the point being made by me and a couple of others.

1. You want homosexual relationships to be recognised? OK we grant you that.
2. You want homosexual relationships to be considered equal to heterosexual relationships? OK we grant you that.
3. You want homosexual marriages to be recognised? OK we grant you that.
4. You want homosexual marriages to be considered equal to heterosexual marriages? OK we grant you that.


Now having granted all the above, we then pose the following questions to you:

1. Why should a relationship between a brother and sister not also be recognised?
2. Why should a relationship between a brother and sister not also be recognised (especially if they do not want biological children)?
3. Why should a relationship between a father and daughter not also be recognised?
4. Why should a relationship between a father and daughter not also be recognised (especially if they do not want biological children)?
5. Why should a relationship between a man and a dog not also be recognised --- afterall they are both animals (what with the man being an ape)?

Why shouldn't all you've listed be recognized given the fact that we recognize heterosexual marriage?

TV01: Like a "little boy lost" ! Outboxed, outfought. Beaten and dejected, you descend into pained incoherence. Re-engineer (make-it-up) it all you want, you can't have it !

Oops. Looks like you see your stance as incoherent. Don't blame me for your poor reasoning ability.

TV01: I have listed 9 points above answer #1 first. Please, show the board something other than your bitter spite-filled ranting. It's fact driven and not dick led right?

Your so-called points are just more aimless rambling most of which have been addressed before but in your confused ignorance, you've run from my responses. You can start by actually addressing what I've written. How on earth is it bitter to grant people rights that others have? This further demonstrates your confusion.

TV01: Activist judges - most of whom are homosexual/homosexualists. Did they invent or coin marriage? Did the state sef? It's instructive that nowhere has it happened on a free vote or referendum. So because a judge rules, it's right and for the best. Feeble, utterly feeble.

Nothing for the boys in this case. Sorry 0!


TV

So all judges who point out reasonably that homosexuals can get married are homosexual? This to me is just more poor reasoning on display. If someone disagrees with them, just label them as belonging to whatever group you oppose. Seriously, learn how to have a discussion because you're just embarrassing yourself.

Whenever your brain finally migrates out of your colon, you can let me know by addressing points I've made.