₦airaland Forum

TV01: Marriage is axiomatically male/female. That is the basic and immutable essence of it. All your piffle about race, tribe is distractionary and typifies your lack or real argument.

So we're now making things up? Well I declare that marriage is axiomatically white/white. That is the basic and immutable essence of it. All your piffle about sex and procreation is mere distraction and typifies your lack of a real argument.

TV01: It was made to reflect your warped reasoning, you dummy !

But only succeeded in revealing your ignorant rambling.

TV01: Because humans can marry, therefore homosexuals can marry each other - however marriage is defined? Homosexuals have the right to define marriage however they see fit? Which means anyone can name any type of relationship marriage if they so desire. Leading with your dick won't produce a coherent argument !


TV

Again, making things up and just mumbling rubbish don't make an argument. Those judges who agree that homosexual couples can marry aren't necessarily homosexual themselves so accusing homosexuals of doing something strange still doesn't work. Leading without a brain won't produce a coherent argument.

TV01: a. Homosexuals are humans, - no gainsaying, having the same worth and deserving the same dignity as all humans

b. humans have the right to marry - absolutely, same, worth, same value, same fundamental human rights as all

c. therefore homosexuals can marry - like everyone - bar certain restrictions age, kinship etc. - a member of the opposite sex

I presumed this would be self-evident to one of even modest capability, but it's clear you need it spelt out. No, don't thank me .

What is self evident is your poor reasoning ability. How would it be freedom to say that e.g everyone is free to marry only members of their own tribe or their own race when they would rather to marry someone of another tribe or another race? Isn't it arbitrary to declare that race or tribe should be a valid restriction in a marriage? The fatuousness of your response is truly astounding.

TV01: Here, occupy yourself with this (and quit muddling an "above your pay grade" discussion);

A. car has four wheels and an engine and is operated by humans
B. a lawn mower has four wheels and an engine and is operated by humans
C. therefore a lawn mower is a car?


TV

Your second syllogism is so terribly malformed that it demonstrates your ignorant ramblings. You should learn how to form non-fallacious syllogisms. What you've written out can be codified as:

A. P has Q
B. R has Q
C. Therefore R is P.

It simply makes no sense.

TV01: Well, well, well, No real surprise, I've allowed two odd days and all that's come back are 3 poor - if earnest - attempts and not a point between them ! I guess I can wrap this up now.

Between them, Redlyn, wiegraf and thehomer could not come up with one benefit to society of sodomitic marriage. Why? beacause there simply aren't any.

Redlyn could only drone on about asset merging and visitation rights etc, which has nothing to do with the state, therefore no reason for a statutory framework. All the things mentioned could be covered by a simple co-habitation agreement drawn up by a solicitor, just like the "business partnership" Redlyn compared it too. Two men in casual relationship and two men in a committed one, add exactly the same to society - nothing - and should therefore engender exactly the same response, none. What does the commitment change that has any effect beyond the two of them? It benefits society how exactly? Not a whit!

Wiegraf scrabbled around with equality, when I specifically asked for an answer without recourse to opposite sex unions. Equality treats like things alike, it doesn't make different things the same. Neither can it force things that are unalike to be alike by forcing the same outcomes.

An opposite sex relationship is substantively different from a same sex pairing - just as men are substantively different from women - both in content and outcome. The only reason marriage came into being was because of the procreative possibility of the opposite sex pairing. Society has an interest in securing the future and marriage is the safest and optimal setting for the procreation and nurture of children, whilst at the same time requiring the least intervention from and proving the most cost-effective way for the state. Genius. I prefer Divine . That is why we create a statutory framework around marriage, support it and accrue benefits to it. The state has no interest in any other kind of human relationship.

Like I said, statutory benefits to two men in a relationship who commit to one another and not to two men who don't - regardless of if they are in a relationship or not is pointless and discriminatory, as none of them benefit society one jot.

Whereas it makes absolute sense for society to encourage and support an opposite sex commitment as it is the most likely to produce and best raise the children so vital for the future. And despite a few outliers - those who do not for whatever reason procreate - the principle holds and serves perfectly.

Nonsense about the various ways to produce children is simply desperate. The best - for children - and most cost effective way remains the binary male/female model. The right to enter into the institution of marriage is freely available to all. Not the right to form a relationship of any nature and have it statutorily called marriage.

To scream that equality demands that sterile sodomitic acts are now equated with procreative coupling and affirmed as marriage is simply absurd. And thehomer citing "justness", as a benefit/reason is even worse, not least because real justice would demand that any type of intimate act (or commitment according to Redlyn) by a human be elevated to marriage

You hypocritically scream "privacy", whilst at the same time demanding societal endorsement. But sodomitic acts are empty, sterile and a
dead-end. there is no outcome and zero product. Granted, you may truly feel that your relationships are loving, committed and worthy, but they are not the same, do not have the same outcome or the same benefit to society.

So like I said, it's a wrap. It's actually quite perverse trying to package abnormal sexual acts and those who engage in them as a "special/protected class" and on that basis, ascribing a whole host of rights to them. And to do so at the expense of freedom of expression and by eviscerating institutions that have served society so well for so long. Now that's tyranny.

Too close, I'll say this; it's quite obvious that this is really about foisting deviancy and immorality on those who don't agree with it, by forcing them to do so by statute. It's also clear that it's about stilling any dissenting voices the same way. But whatever statutes you create around it, however you label it, it remains a degrading and immoral act.


TV

I notice that you merely want to make a lot of noise but produce nothing of substance. A great place for you to start would be with you addressing this argument that you clarified.

thehomer: . . . .
1a. Homosexuals are humans,

b. humans have the right to marry,

c. therefore homosexuals can marry
. . . .

TV01: @thehomer,

I simplified as best I could and asked you quite basic questions. You response suggest you have no answers or that you willfully misunderstood me. So I'll be even more reductionist, just in case.

Forget for a moment that marriage has ever existed and please answer the questions again;

Take two sets of men, a pair and a couple. The pair do everything together as do the couple. The only difference being the couple are emotionally and/or erotically involved. The couple ask that society legally recognises their union;

1. What is the benefit to society that would lead to recognition of their union?
2. What are the "various legal and social benefits" that society should gift or accrue to this "family unit"
3.Why.
4. How are they in any way different to the "pair" who seek no societal endorsement of their union?
5. Why should society discriminate in their favour - by giving them various benefits - over the pair,simply because they formalise their union?


TV

Asked and answered here.

Image123: Thank you for 'pointing out' as requested. From the passages you pointed out, i did not see any case of genocide. What i saw was judgement. If you want to ask why God judged those people, i'll answer. But if you re asking about the crime of genocide, i see/saw no such thing.
Next?

Sorry you're too ignorant to discuss God's actions as written in the Bible with me. Good bye.

@TV01

Why didn't you address your own argument laid out as a syllogism? Is it because you found it too difficult to tackle?

TV01: @thehomer (or indeed anyone else),

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

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

The benefit is that the society accepts that there are no second class citizens.

TV01: 2. What are the "various legal and social benefits" that society gift or accrue to this "family" unit and why.

Firstly, the benefit to the society is secondary to the society being just to all its members. Otherwise, why would anyone choose to be a member of a society that denies them rights granted to others?

Secondly, the society benefits in being seen as being just.

Thirdly, the society benefits because this couple can also raise children in a loving and caring household.

TV01: 3. How are they in any way different to the "pair" who seek no societal endorsement of their union? Or any other "pair"?

The fact that they are a couple legally and emotionally. Thus, they can e.g inherit property due to couples, visit in times of great distress like in a hospital and have other rights as couples.

TV01: 4. How are they in any way different to a second couple, identical to them, who seek no formal societal recognition of their coupling?

See above.

TV01: 5. Why should society discriminate in their favour over the pair, other pairs or the 2nd identical couple simply because they formalise their union?

What do you mean by "discriminate in their favour"? They want recognition that they are married. The fact that they are married doesn't affect two people who do not want to be married.

TV01: I'd appreciate a response to the above without recourse to opposite sex marriage. Unless of course you can demonstrate that they are the same in every way and that society' endorsement or benefits have nothing to do with the potential or outcome, but solely the legal joining or solemnisation


TV

Your questions too are just pointless. Two people who want to get married and do get married does nothing to affect other people who do not want to get married. A man and a woman who do not want to get married does nothing to affect another man and woman who do want to get married.

Image123: The first thing you listed is genocide and i'm aware genocide is defined as a crime. i search the Bible for that word and i did not find it. You are free to state where God committed that. The ones you provide proof of are the ones i woud bother replying to. So when you show me the where, i will tell you the why. i do not have the time for copy and paste questions. Your knowledge of God remains zero having known you for years. Back up your allegations or be silent and ignored.

Well, look up the meaning of the word, take a look at the passages I cited here for Reyginus to respond to and formulate your response. If you don't know your Bible enough to know what I was referring to, then you're not qualified to tell me the reasons why since you've already demonstrated your ignorance.

You can:

1. respond to the actions I pointed out that God performed
2. state clearly that you don't know that God performed any of those actions
3. take a hike.

If in your next post, you choose to whine about more passages, I'll take to mean that you don't know that God had performed those actions and that to me is you admitting your ignorance of the Bible and thus making it pointless for me to engage you.

Image123: Good luck. i expected that you would be thorough enough to prove your allegations. i am not aware of God committing any crime. If you think He did, prove it or be silent.

I expected that you would be knowledgeable about your Bible enough to identify those acts I listed. If you already accept that those acts are crimes, then you've accepted that your God is a criminal. If you don't know where any of the acts I listed are in the Bible, please state it clearly so I can gauge the degree of your ignorance.

TV01: All the arguments – non of which are remotely plausible - for SSM can be summed up thus;

1. Homosexuals are humans, humans have the right to marry, therefore homosexuals can marry OR

2. Homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals, therefore if heterosexuals have the right to marry, so do homosexuals

. . . .

More aimless rambling. You need to learn how to address arguments. You've formulated two arguments to help you clearly order them as syllogisms, I've rearranged them for you below.

1a. Homosexuals are humans,

b. humans have the right to marry,

c. therefore homosexuals can marry OR

The second argument restates the first one but isn't as clear so you can clearly deal with this main argument by pointing out the premise you disagree with.

TV01: Maybe you're inanity drove him away !



"Gays" are pushing for rights based solely on their sexual inclinations and have already achieved "protected class" status in some jurisdictions. And they are able to legally force others to participate in their perversions as a result. They do not just have rights that non-gays don't have, their so called gay rights also compromise the religious rights that non-gays have.

You're merely confused. What do you think gay rights refer to? How does gay rights mean that a gay person can force someone who isn't gay to have intercourse with them?

TV01: So rights are as a result of adulthood? Guess that precludes children huh?

No, what I'm referring to are the rights we're talking about i.e the right to get married.

TV01: Marriage is not about attractions or sexual proclivities, it's about the outcome of procreative intercourse, which can only be engaged in by an opposite sex pairing.

That is clearly wrong since fertility tests aren't performed before allowing couples to get married. Neither are sterilized people prevented from getting married.

TV01: I've written two posts which clearly outline what I think it is. Please re-read. If you disagree please feel free to explicate what you think the essence of marriage is.

If you mean childbirth, then I've explained my disagreement. If it is something else, please state what it is in a single line.

TV01: For that to happen - and the marriage to be in all ways the same and equal to an opposite sex marriage - the essence of marriage has to be changed. Children and the benefits to them and society that underscore marriage have to be expunged from its definition. It has as to be re-defined. What I have - as a man - with my wife, is in no way the same or equal to a same sex pairing.

Who put children in the definition of marriage? It looks like you're making up your own definition. Secondly, how does what gay people do actually affect your marriage? How does allowing women to vote stop men from voting?

TV01: A same sex couple cannot sexually consummate and adultery in it's historic sense cannot apply to them. For same sex and opposite sex unions to be "the same", these two aspects have to be removed, as does the basis of a procreative possibility.

Procreation isn't the aim of marriage. Merely declaring that homosexuals can't have sex tells me that you don't know what sexual intercourse is. Here's a definition for you.

TV01: I never said it was or that it should be, merely re-stating the Christian - and morality based on the Christian - view.

What is the point of stating it when it doesn't apply to the country?

TV01: I've explained this. The principle remains in place. Procreative potential is inherent in an opposite sex union. It is not even a remote possibility in a same-sex one.

No you've not. You've merely asserted it but the fact that some people physically cannot have sex means that your assertion doesn't help you. There are other ways of having children. From adoption to surrogacy.

TV01: You'll need to understand the difference between principle and discrete instances in practice if you are going to "torment" me .

Looks to me like you're the one who doesn't understand what a principle is. If your principle is violated by an example, then it opens the way to other violations.

TV01: No one is stopping you from showing another

Well, I'm showing you the homosexual pairing.

TV01: Some turkeys survived x-mas huh? Marriage is not about intimate proclivities, colour, height or any other characteristics (except the normal age, consanguinity etc. restrictions). It's male/female.

Looks to me like you're still confused. Why shouldn't inter racial marriage be considered as being not normal?

TV01: For that to happen, marriage has to be gutted and it's societal utility regards children and their rights and best interests ignored. Keep shouting rights, but ignore those of children. It's child abuse and despicably so, as it's merely to satisfy adult desire, whatever ones view on the morality of that desire.

What societal utility? You do realize that people can have children without marriage so your argument of just think of the children doesn't work. Declaring that it is child abuse doesn't work unless you can show the abuse.

TV01: Like sodomitic marriage then?

No, like a paragraph that does nothing to advance an idea.

TV01: Both Mr. A and Miss. B are allowed to marry members of the opposite sex. No rights are being infringed.

Well with homosexual marriage, they're also allowed to marry members of the same sex. No rights are being infringed.

TV01: Pray tell what is. Please explain how it came to be through pretty much all societies through all of human history? Just to deny sodomites? Due too heterosexual animus towards homosexuals? Please tell us what the essence of marriage is?

The essence is uniting two adult individuals into a family unit with various legal and social benefits.

TV01: They already have that. The right is to marry someone of the opposite sex. That is what marriage is, is for and what constitutes it's essence. Marriage has nothing to do with who you are attracted to or how you engage sexually.

Well heterosexuals with this right would have the right to marry someone of the same sex. Looks to me like you're confused about the function of marriage.

TV01: If you do respond, please bring something a little more palatable. I don't do turkey leftovers. Not tormented, merely irked by the unthinking blindness and banality of your trite posers.

Cluck, cluck

TV

If you respond, please take the time to carefully think about your response rather than making pointless assertions and writing confused paragraphs that do nothing to advance your argument.

TV01: Holá everyone, hope merry x-masses were had by all.

Ihedinobi, how far? Hope all's well.

Ihedinobi has run from his thread. I'll be your tormentor for the rest of it.

TV01: Let me start from the end. No, I don't think that I have or should have more rights than a "gay person", Neither do I think that just because a person practices a certain type of intimate behaviour, he/she should be ascribed a set of rights over and above my rights or generic human rights.

How does a gay person having the right to have mean they have a set of rights that you don't have?

TV01: And I laugh at the hypocrisy that says rights should be ascribed to "gays" on the basis of their proclivities, but not to others on the basis of theirs; to wit polygamists, zoophiliacs, paedophiles etc.

The rights aren't assigned on the basis of their "proclivities", but on the basis that they're adult humans.

TV01: There are in truth only human rights, applicable to all. I would make exceptions for the vulnerable, i.e. children, the disabled, but other than that no "special or protected interests". The whole notion of gay rights is simply a contrivance to impose the perversion.

And the point is consistently overlooked, that whatever the legalities or definition, there are some who will always count sodomy as as abominable, deviant, degrading, immoral or simply disordered. You cannot re-define or legislate away issues of morality, which is what is being attempted here.

Are you seriously suggesting that because some view sodomy as immoral and what not, gay people must not be allowed to get married? How about lesbians? And heterosexuals who practice sodomy? Should their bedrooms be policed to ensure that they have intercourse the right way?

TV01: It does not fall at all, let alone flat. Neither has your rebuttal actually said anything. If something is re-defined in such a way that it loses it's essence, it's not being simply re-defined, it's being destroyed. A re-definition should not vary anything that is fundamental to what a thing is in essence, otherwise it ceases to be, or is rendered useless.

So far example "adulthood", being mentally and physically able to engage as an adult is it's essence, being impossible before puberty. If we move the adulthood bar to a pre-pubertal age, we render the term useless.

What then is the essence of marriage?

TV01: Re-defining marriage to include a pair that are 1. not opposite sex, 2. cannot procreate in principle or in practice means it is no longer marriage as we have historically and anthropologically understood it. It becomes something else. And for everyone. To make it work for "gays", it ceases to work for anyone. Rights? No, it's about redefining the immoral as moral.

How does two adult women getting married stop marriage from working for anyone else? Marriage is neither moral nor immoral so you're merely confused about that.

TV01: The concepts of adultery and consummation have also to be stripped out of marriage' essence, as both are simply nonsensical in a same-sex pairing.

How are they nonsensical?

TV01: And from a canonical Christian perspective, whether you redefine (marriage), or recreate (civil unions), sin remains sin.

Then you would do well to realize that the country isn't being run from a canonical Christian perspective.

TV01: 1. An arrangement where two people who just "want to spend the rest of their lives together", needs no legal codification or societal endorsement. If that's all it was, we would not have evolved anything even like marriage. We - being society - take an interest in this type of arrangement solely due to the procreative possibility. That's the whole point.

False. If that were the case, then we won't allow old people to get married. Neither would we allow marriage without first testing the fertility of the couples involved.

TV01: 2. Even if there are no offspring - by design or default - the principle holds, an opposite sex pairing is the basis for procreation and the best setting for nurturing children.

If there can be no offspring, then your principle doesn't hold.

TV01: 3. Orphaned or abandoned/unwanted kids would be best served by placing them with a male/female pairing in every which way. We should encourage and if expedient incentivise this. Neither bad opposite couples or demoniosing them, makes a case for same-sex ones.

How exactly do you know that only this male/female pairing works?

TV01: 4. You may ask whatever you please, it changes the basis of this discussion not a wit. Two fathers or two mothers in lieu of an opposite sex parent in not "normal".

Then what is "normal"? Is a situation with one black father and an asian mother "normal"?

TV01: I said that the voice of the religious is every bit as valid as any other in a democracy. I did not prescribe a theocratic state. Scarecrow !

If "homosexuality" is right and good and proper, it follows that it has every right to be celebrated as any other legitimate lifestyle/sexuall expression.

In one breath you claim rights for sodomites, in another you deny them for legitimate minorities in a democratic setting?

How does allowing homosexuals get married deny anyone else their rights?

TV01: However old or new a descriptive word is, is not the point. If a language construct changes the essence of a thing, we need to ask why. Coining the word "homosexual" and as a contradistinction to heterosexual, suggests there are two types of human being? It's a contrivance and a lie. We only have male/female. To accept otherwise is to accept that a peadophile or polygamist is a "different type" also, as opposed to the same with different desires or inclinations. To normalise the deviancy called sodomy, they have to de-construct and reconstruct language.

This paragraph is devoid of meaning.

TV01: Any human that engages in carpentry will use their hands though, not so? Unless of course they don't have any. All humans (bar outliers) can procreate and all do so in only one way. NO rights are being infringed on keeping marriage as it is. Contrary to what some incredulously believe, marriage was not instituted to infringe anyones rights and not based on what one likes to do with their members, but the real and required outcome of procreative coupling.

Sexual design and functionality are clear. Desire is an amalgam of a number of factors, but where its manifestation is at odds with design and functionality, then there is obviously something amiss.

So no rights are being infringed when Mr. A can get married to another adult that he likes but Mrs. B can't get married to an adult that she likes? Maybe you're merely confused about what is under consideration.

TV01: I believe I have talked this point to exhaustion. Procreation in principle even if not in practice gives us the essence of marriage and anchors it's societal utility. Even if not in practice, it remains the ideal setting and kids can be adopted. Even if not in practice, it re-enforces the notion. It works perfectly and at minimal cost to and with minimal intervention by society.

Wrong. Procreation is not the essence of marriage. Merely declaring it to be the case doesn't make it so.

TV01: Sodomy is all about sex. There are lots of same couple relationships - two brothers or sisters, very good/close friends etc. - who could claim exactly the same arrangement as homosexuals - just without the physical intimacy. We do not say they should be married. Any arrangement they wish to make can be contracted privately. It requires no state intervention as it has little if any societal benefit.


TV

This paragraph to is just confused. No one is asking you to marry gay people. Gay people simply want the same right to be married that other people have. Nothing more.

Image123: you never had a point in starting na. Let me prove it to you again. Oya, all those your allegations in the OP, kindly back each one with at least one scripture passage each. After this, i will answer.

Rubbish. Since you're a Christian, I expected you to have been well informed on your Bible. You tell me the actions you think that God didn't perform but I listed. Those are the ones that I'll bother with providing Bible passages. Just realize that it would mean that you're quite ignorant about your Bible.

I wonder why he suddenly decided to deactivate his account. Maybe he's become uncomfortable.

Enigma: 1. Statements that an animal cannot "consent" to sex with a human are often shortsighted. Sometimes there is an attempt (perhaps subconsciously) to cover up for the shortsightedness by talk of "reasoned consent" or "informed consent". But of course when a dog "consents" to sex with another dog --- is that "reasoned consent" or is that "informed consent"? But here is a thing, the same "consent" to sex that a dog gives to another dog, the same dog can indeed give to a human! I have myself seen a female dog make a gesture of invitation or submission to sex towards a male human.

Bottomline: there has to be a basis beyond "consent" for opposing "bestiality"; oh, and what about zoophilia even?

This point is irrelevant. What is under discussion is interactions between humans not interactions between other animals. Any basis for opposing bestiality applies whether or not homosexuals can get married.

Enigma: 2. Marriage by definition has historically, culturally (and etc 'allies') been understood to be a union between males and females. It is true that a word can be redefined to suit new circumstances but generally there have to be justifiable reasons for the redefinition. It is amusing that some people are willing to accept impose a redefinition of "marriage" to include homosexual unions. BUT point out to them that atheism, or at least some forms of it and especially evangelical atheism, is indeed now a religion, the more myopic demur and some foam at the mouth on descent to some form of apoplexy.

One would think that the fact that people are being granted rights that others have always had is a satisfactory justification. Declaring atheism to be a religion isn't a redefinition of anything so that angle is also irrelevant. If you wish to redefine religion to include atheism, then you also think that communism and the civil rights movements were religions too. If you're happy with that consequence, then go ahead with your redefinition.

Enigma: 3. In the case of "marriage" between homosexuals, the question needs to be asked whether even a committed union between homosexuals should be called "marriage" (i.e. marriage plainly at all) or should be known as something else. In the UK for example, there is something known as "civil partnership"; this did not gather as much opposition as that towards extending the meaning of "marriage" to include homosexual unions. Other suggestions can be made e.g. create a new category of union e.g. "gay union" or "gay marriage" so that they can be distinguished from traditional understandings of "marriage".

Why should a new category be created? Why not create a category called "mixed-marriage" or "mixed-union" to cover a situation where people of different races are getting married, "black-marriage" for blacks, "asian-marriage" for asians and plain "marriage" for caucasians getting married.

Enigma: 4. It is all well and good to speak of the "rights" of homosexuals to unions --- but should it be at the risk of taking away the rights of heterosexuals? It is all well and good to give "value" to the unions of homosexuals --- but should it be at the risk of devaluing the unions of heterosexuals. There is a legitimate argument that to extend "marriage" per se as known to homosexual unions would devalue the "marriage" of heterosexuals as understood. Well, maybe scientists will prove zoophilia at some point in the future to the extent that we can ask: why can "marriage" not include a union between a human and an animal? Come to think of it, some would tell us that man is an animal too, or that man is an ape. So what is intrinsically wrong in marriage between one animal and another? What is intrinsically wrong in marriage between an ape and a dog, say?

How does extending human rights to other humans diminish your rights? How does granting the right to vote to women diminish the right of men to vote? This is just a generally bad argument. Have you considered that marriage can't include a union between a human and an animal because animals aren't humans. Or do you think homosexuals are animals? It is amazing that people like you don't see the insult in such a comparison but would quickly make a lot of noise if someone wondered why extending the right to vote to black people in a predominantly white society shouldn't include extending the right to vote to pets.

Enigma: 5. Again, even if homosexual unions or homosexual 'marriages' are legalised or even if homosexual unions are seen as "marriages", should religious institutions be compelled to perform ceremonies for such unions? Will it be taking away from the "rights" of homosexuals if religious institutions are not obliged to perform such unions? How does it affect the "rights" of religious institutions and their members if they are compelled to perform ceremonies for such unions.

If the religious institution is an arm of the state, then it should be compelled to perform such ceremonies if the participants want it to be done in that religious institution. If there's a separation between the religion and the government, then they're free not to perform these ceremonies.

Enigma: 6. Nowadays, some countries are moving towards a situation where po.rnography (at least certain forms of it) is blocked by default by Internet service providers; thus a user has to opt for it. Does it not make sense that even if a country legalises homosexual unions, the law rules by default that religious institutions cannot under any circumstances be required to perform ceremonies for such unions ---- unless a particular religious institution opts in i.e. opts to perform them?

It is the case that religious institutions aren't compelled by the state to perform these ceremonies. Those that wish to perform them do choose to perform them.

Ihedinobi: I already stated the assumption, thehomer. You did read the post completely, right? Here it is again:



I have extracted two questions or three from Piers's question already. Do you suppose that those questions have obvious answers? What are the obvious answers?

I'd say it is obvious that marriage is a right that adults have. If you disagree, please explain why you disagree.

Image123: A song? Indeed, lets compose a carol. You don't want to hear me talk i'm certain. BTW, you know some of the answers i'll give already na. Na to bore you remain.

@Josh
getting alonging

Okay then no point in continuing this. I'll wait for someone else who is ready to explain why God did the things he is said to have done according to the Bible.

mrs bin gbagbo: why must i by force join a church?

The bills for the pastor's private jets have to be paid since they won't pay themselves.

Joshthefirst: God-sense.

You've successfully made a poor argument.

God is a special person in the sense that God is a special person.

Joshthefirst: i do not know, I was referring to our immediate galactic environment, to a rock like mars.

So does the fact that there's no life on Mars mean that there's no life anywhere else? The universe is much bigger than this small region we inhabit.

Joshthefirst: we're speaking opf consciousness and life. Can we "synthesize" consciousness? Can we create life from "nothing"?

Does the fact that we can't do so today mean that God did it? Who says nothing was ever the case?

Joshthefirst: please show your up-to-date information here.

You'll do better by helping yourself to read up on it. This is a good starting point.

Joshthefirst: how does:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep...
And God said, Let there be...

Prove unsatisfactory?
Is this not the basis we're speaking with?
That the creator was before the beginning, that he spoke in the beginning?

Substitute God with Zeus and tell me if you're satisfied with that passage.

Joshthefirst: the direction we see in life. The depth of consciousness we see in man, etc.

What direction we see in life? Things live and they die. How does God help in the consciousness of man? Saying humans are conscious therefore God did it is a terrible argument.

rationalmind: While I admit I'm learning from the discussion, and its intellectually stimulating, these sort of discussions are usually boring.

Make I go bash religion abeg

Straight to the point.

Deep Sight: Because we refer to different "somethings" - as I have explained above, there are logical grounds to hold that that default "something" could not be the universe. If those grounds hold true and consistent, as they do indeed, then we are ineluctably left with a default something which is not material, or of this universe.

Actually, you've not provided logical grounds, you've only provided assertions. I've not said the default "something" is the universe.

Deep Sight: When I ask you "why something instead of nothing" - it is because of the logical impossibility and inconsistency of the notion of material self-existent somethings.

So you jump to immaterially existing somethings? As far as language is concerned, an immaterial existing something is an oxymoron.

Deep Sight: Besides, friend, you might really want to take a very deep look into what you mean when you say that matter or energy of this universe just exists - absent cause.

I've looked deep enough to realize that I would be better off leaving that to experts to figure out.

Deep Sight: Really? THEN please tell me what a "default state" means, in terms of our discussions on same?

A default is a starting state. A default setting can be changed.

Deep Sight: If it was not always the state (i.e: eternal in the past) then how is it to be said to be the "default state", hmmmm?

It was a starting or preceding state.

Deep Sight: If it only became the state of things at a point, then it is hardly "default", no?

Actually, it can be. e.g the default state of a newly purchased phone is a state that doesn't have any contacts. Even if during testing, contacts were added and later deleted.

Deep Sight: This speaks for itself. I think you need to do some thinking both on the substantive issues here, and the words you have deployed in the past - as well as their implications - because it is hair-raising-shocking that you have, all this while, not recognized the implication of "default state" with reference to eternity in the past. Very shocking and discouraging. It would mean we argue while passing ideas on very different wavelengths and it would therefore be no surprise that we never understand one another.

Declaring that I must be or should be shocked does nothing to bolster your argument or your claims. You would need to tell me what I should be shocked about and why is should be shocked about it.

Deep Sight: That is my position as well. Nothing else can be countenanced.

Then why do you keep proposing some other person? Or isn't this creator of yours a person?

Deep Sight: For the simple reason that the universe does not disclose itself as self existent:

1. It is mutable

2. It evidentially commenced from a point

As such, it is logical to infer that the universe is not self existent.

How does it then follow that a creator person is needed from your premises?

Deep Sight: The creator would not be a person in the sense of being a human person.

So it would be a person in what sense?

Joshthefirst: Sir, you're destroying your own argument by asking me this question.

And is it the earth that gives birth to life? Using your own premise, why is there no life on rocks similar to our own?

How do you know there is no life on the billions of other planets in the galaxy?

Joshthefirst: Is it the zygote that "synthesizes" human consciousness? And does the sperm cell not even show its own "life processes" to a certain degree? What is the source of consciousness and life? Non-conscious piles of rock? No.

The answer to your bolded question is the source of life: God(why do you have a problem with this? Can you create consciousness and life? Even in its littlest form? even non-conscious things we cannot make. The scientific community has never been able to make a single grain of sand. The only thing we have forcibly synthesized from enormous energy is subatomic matter and antimatter particles.)

The fact that we can't do it yet doesn't mean it had to be done by your God. We can't create galaxies yet does that then mean your God did it?

Joshthefirst: Even if the earth were the source of life and consciousness, what then is the source of non-conscious piles of rock? Energy? Where did the energy come from?

You may want to take a look at the Big Bang theory for up to date information.

Joshthefirst: aside from what DS has said, what do you mean by isn't good enough? Do you mean isn't convenient for you? As I have said, someBEING, must have been self-existent, uncaused, that gave rise to the universe we see around us, its not what I like to think, its what is obvious and implied and ascertained from observation of our known world.

No, I mean it isn't satisfactory given what we know about people, the universe and other things. If you explain lightning as Zeus throwing thunderbolts while accepting that you're merely asserting that there's a Zeus out there and he happens to throw thunderbolts, then you can see why such an explanation isn't satisfactory given what we currently know.

Since it is so obvious to you, why don't you show me what you've seen that helped you arrive at this conclusion?

plaetton: Yeah.

Everything was created , except the creator.

They just don't know how childish and ridiculous that sounds.

That I think is why we must keep pointing out that questionable assumption.

Deep Sight: The choices are between a self existent creator and a self existent universe: either way, you cannot escape one thing or the other being self-existent. Thus, self existence, by itself, is not a concept to be mocked: whichever side wins the debate, one thing or the other must be self-existent. This is inescapable.

No, the only option is somethingness.

Why should a self existent creator be an acceptable choice? Self existence of a person I think is to be mocked. If you wish to say that this creator isn't a person, then I can start agreeing with you.

Deep Sight: I do not, and have never stated, that nothingness should be the default state. If anything I have always argued that nothingness by definition is none existent, and as such no such thing as "nothingness" has ever existed anywhere, anytime, anyhow.

Then why did you say:

Your position, which you have canvassed extensively on this board, is that the universe as it is "may be the default state" of existence, or "universe-like" objects. You were very happy to ignore the question as to why this is the "default state": to wit: why something, instead of nothing, as the default state. It is instructive that you are willing to countenance this magical proposition, whilst regarding similar magic propounded by religion as delusional and illogical.

Deep Sight: Somethingness, is the default state.

If you accept that somethingness is the default state, then why do you complain when I accept that it is? I said it may be the case. Asking me why when I'm not sure that it is the case to me is just hasty. Also, thinking that you have the answer by fiat doesn't make your answer correct.

Deep Sight: What I have always disputed, is that that default somethingness, could not possibly be matter, because matter is mutable. I think we have discussed this at length several times, and you never absorbed this simple point, and I see no reason to think that you would absorb it now.

Sorry but your argument doesn't help. Telling me that it can't be matter because matter can change isn't helpful unless you know what actually is the case. After all, matter can change into energy and I've not said that the somethingness has to be matter.

Deep Sight: However, it just occurs to me that perhaps you can reflect on this simple fact, and perhaps it will assist you in grasping the point - >

What is meant by "default" state in this context, and would it be eternal in the past, and if so, how could "default" be mutable? Is there not a contradiction in saying that a default eternal state, is also mutable?

What do you mean by "eternal in the past"? Is it that this something was before time? If it was, why does it have to be eternal when it changed as time extended? I've not said anything about a default eternal state.

Joshthefirst: I take the creator to be the only uncaused ma'am. I meant that the nature of the universe implies its creator$

Why shouldn't this be seen as a mere assertion or just special pleading?

"Everything was created except this one special thing that I like to think wasn't created" simply isn't good enough.

Joshthefirst: Excuse me.


Is everything demonstrable? Is everything physical? Is man entirely physical? Is consciousness physical? Can consciousness be proved by your material scientific laws?

Consciousness is a process that has been labelled.

Consciousness is demonstrable. That is what Descartes demonstrates when he says "I think therefore I am".

Joshthefirst: this is where it starts. Nihilistic thinking I think. We'll start trying to define nothingness as something and something as nothing and end up having headaches.

I'm not defining something as nothing. If you think nothingness had to exist then we had the universe, then you're the one trying to define nothingness as something.

Joshthefirst: yes, what causes temperature and pressure differences that cause the particles to be further energized? What causes the cause of these differences, and the cause of the cause of this differences? What set this laws and established these effects as natural order? Why are we not in infinite randomness and why are the electric impulses in our brains directed and how are we able to think?
We land at the end of all things, and the beginning of all things; we arrive at the vastness of a creator.

What do you mean when you ask for the cause of different temperature and pressures? Do you think it is someone who is altering temperature?

Sorry but your leap from ice melting to a creator is very suspicious. Would you mind going through the steps for me?

Deep Sight: Why is the idea of a transcendent mind so scary to you?

Anyway, you can ignore that. It's a rhetorical question.

Don't worry, I'll take it seriously. It isn't scary to me, it is simply incoherent to me because minds generally require bodies. Unless you're able to demonstrate a mind without a body, or explain how it can happen, I see no reason to accept that premise.

Deep Sight: Your position, which you have canvassed extensively on this board, is that the universe as it is "may be the default state" of existence, or "universe-like" objects. You were very happy to ignore the question as to why this is the "default state": to wit: why something, instead of nothing, as the default state. It is instructive that you are willing to countenance this magical proposition, whilst regarding similar magic propounded by religion as delusional and illogical.

You still don't get it. Why should nothing be the default state? I'm actually on better grounds with saying that something is the default state. Especially when you can't demonstrate nothingness.