₦airaland Forum

Redlyn: Does this mean you are okay for homosexuals to live peacefully together as a couple and are recognized by the state as such?

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

Redlyn: I think anyone is free to condemn it and consider it a sin and raise your kids with that mindset. I completely support your right to do that. But imagine a world where everyone imposed their version of morality on others.

That's is exactly the issue here. State endorsement of homosexuality forces it on everyone regardless. Another of your self-evident and self defeating points.

Redlyn: Homosexuality is completely victimless. For me this is the fundamental distinction which separates one debate over the other. Some argue it is not victimless but I am yet to be convinced by any such arguments. "The world will become extinct" is a classic nonstarter.

Lie, lie, lie.

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

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

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

The lifestyle is a lie, the love is fraudulent and all defenses of it are lies.

TV

Redlyn: In many countries in Africa homosexuals are locked up actually.

No one is arguing for a deniel of rights to anyone due to being homosexual.

Redlyn: Someone else's gay union does not prevent you from educating your kids as you wish. There are many people living lifestyles we disapprove of. You simply limit as much as possible your interaction with these people. You don't have to like it, but you should tolerate it as the world is diverse and we are only discussing about 2 adults loving each other.

Not true. Once the state sanctions homosexuality, it will be promulgated as good and proper by the state and it's affiliates.

So for example. In schools, homosex will be taught as a natural, healthy and in all ways equal to normal sex. It will be included in all spheres of school curricula and taught to vulnerable children

For example, as a baker, I sell bread, pastries doughnuts to anyone. However, if I decline to bale a cake celebrating a gay union, I can be prosecuted. What of my individual rights and freedoms? my personal choices?

That is the real aim of the push for "gay marriage". Legitimacy and forced acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle with silence or sanctions for dissenters. There is ample evidence for this.

Redlyn: Replace homosexuality with interracial lifestyle in your post and the arguments were exactly the same, no regards to someone else's quality of life. The world is going in one direction and that is more and more state recognition of gay relationships (either civil union or marriage) by the countries who care about improving everyone's quality of life over the various religious agendas of the majority. I feel quite certain this discussion will go the way of may others of its kind and become history.

Totally different. One is about race, the other about behaviour. One is about rights, the other about morality. One is about genetic immutibility,the other about behavioural choices. You simply cannot sell legitimising homosex on it's own merits. As it has none. Piggy backing off real rights struggles is repugnant.

Nope. Like the no-fault divorce and unquestioned-abortion issues. It will run and run. Too many know it is simply wrong.Be that for religious, moral or practical reasons. The consequences will become very clear. Maybe not instantly, but we will surely see them.


TV

Nosyke: @Nash, TV, et al, please start giving your guy bits on wedding plans Bussyluv08 weds Nosyke

Get a girl first mate

But seriously, be as cash rich as you can be in preparation and ahead of time. Even if you haven't gotten the girl! Listen carefully; plan your budget with a medium term view - i.e. there is life and there will be expenses after the day - and stick to it. Anyone that thinks you should charter helicopter, release a million white doves, or anything you both haven't planned for, should only be accomodated on the basis they are willing to fund it.

In all likelihood, you would have dreamed of winning the girl, the girl would have dreamt of the big day. She probably already knows what she wants. Negotiate what's best for you both and support her all the way. Keep a close eye on spending and all arangements. PM it!

Nosyke: @Nash, TV, et al. For a guy that likes staying indoors, how can the social life be improved. In one of your posts, you mentioned something about an ideal guy knowing the right social points/joints around him without necessarily turning into a mobile brewery?

If you are a Christian, church is great. But beware, you probably have to be more discerning there than in a brothel .

For the naturally reclusive, a solid network of family and friends is a big asset. No matter how small yours is work to extend it.

Let me give you two insights from my time searching;

1. Boldness
I was - am even - a little like you. Boldness was one of the things I had to learn. And I mean to the extent of approaching people wherever you meet them. It's not easy and requires patience and practice. But it will make you feel manly and build confidence - even if you get blown out. No marriage proposals at first sight 0 ! A simple "hello, how are you" or "good morning", will suffice. Start by learning to engage people you know more - colleagues etc. - then move on to "neutrals", girls that you are not necessarily interested in - this reduces pressure and sweaty armpit/clammy hand/cotton mouth type situations

2. Smart use of contacts
Following on from my "family & friends" & "boldness points above. I meant and got to know literally hundreds of girls - always knowing I was looking for a wife. My wife. Initially, once they proved "out of scope" for whatever reason, I cut all contact. But as I grew in understanding. I thought hmmm...these ladies could be a great resource. So unless they fell into the "bad eggs" category, I started to retain contact/friendships, making it plainly platonic. A few of these girls became my greatest champions. I met my wife through one of them.


TV

PureOhio: I get the ladies are more hörny. or I was just reading fantasies of the Girls' thread

...mostly fantasies. Or probably the reliving of memories that were probably prior to, or earlier in marriage. Most of those talking about it aren't getting it. Women like to feel among, of course "One-upwomanship" plays a part as well. Even lezzas will join in yekini talks .


On Cheating?

Men cheat because they are selfish, immature, spineless, lacking in understanding, wisdom or foresight, because they are profane or of reprobrate mind. Or a mix of the aforementioned. No detailed taxonomy or story required.

No one cheats due to how rich, good looking, tempted, undersexed, maltreated, etc. etc. Such a one is a man in name only. Not in character or conduct.


TV

Nosyke: Sometimes, they might look all fly till the knots tied, and it will be too late by then. So isn't it better to avoid such situations ab initio?

Most women will bring something that will casue concern, raise questions or trigger red. It's how you discern, categorise and respond. For some I'd be unequivocall in saying "move her along, quick time". She cheats, lies, steals etc. Get gone!

Others may give you pause for thought, but may be worth considering if she has other great qualities. So point in question, the disrespect about age, it may not be about age at all, but about her lack of maturity or some other issue. She may just need to grow out of it. You can help there.

In truth many women carry at least a little fear/baggage. Whether they realise it or not, they are looking for a man with broad enough shoulders to deal with them without heaping on the hurt.

Let me speak plainly; some women just need to be loved better! That's why it's important for you to know all about her, so you can figure out if you have the strength to unburden her of that load. The requisite love to make her better. Your care for her will go a long way to easing hurts, deleting wrong impressions and subduing unruliness (Fem... )

You have to be mature enough to discern real issues and real change. Again, softly, softly. Don't force it. Just being around you should make her appreciate some things and change. She may not even realise it. If you have to broach it directly, do so, but it must be couched correctly. No threats, ultimatums. Ultimately the choice is hers. You are a man, if she doesn't measure up in timely fashion you move on, no looking back.


TV

Nosyke: @ Nash, et Al what are your opinions about a guy marrying his agemate. Won't the respect be compromised?

Shouldn't really be a problem. She should respect you for your manliness and maturity. If you possess it. Not your age. End of. If she doesn't the problem is with her. Don't commit until she comes to understanding, but bear with her small if it's the only downside and everything else is good.


TV

bukatyne: Lol@ praying for me regarding marriage.

I trust you Amen'ed eep down

bukatyne: So asking a guy if excess alcohol or even alcohol at all is enjoyment means I am making him to be less than a 'man'?

Listen. Don't nag. Encourage, exhort, counsel. Be wise. No matter how much they pretend, men hate being told what to do by girls. Stone cold fact. Try this; "Brodas, well spoken, not to much hot 0! After all the hard work y'all put in at the gym. Think of the effect on your buff selves" Sofry, sofry. Don't be combative or warlike about it. Not for here - NL - really, but just makng a point. Gyals you dey hear me so?

bukatyne: The issue is that everything is seen as man woman here especially when a 'feminist' aka frustrated old spinster is involved!/quote] No it's not. Don't allow that bias to affect your thinking. It's more women believing they must engage men as men themselves.

[quote author=bukatyne]A guy was happy with Nashville's posts and offered him about 10 bottles of alcohol, 2 plates of peppersoup etc. and I asked him how he considered that to be enjoyment.

Personally I'm teetotal, but as long as one retains mastery over alcohol it's not bad.

bukatyne: Oga Tv on my case as usual said I should 'let men be men'

Because you were nagging, and men hate that more than being told what to do. Hope you are taking notes? So "Let men be men, you be a woman". Then they'll relate to and cherish you as one

bukatyne: I am against alcohol as a Christian; what is my own with men or women in this case?

And that's fine, although Christianity is not against it.

bukatyne: If alcohol makes someone manly, make them carry go.

Now you sound like the frustrated old spinister you mentioned earlier.

C'mon Bukatyne you can do this


TV

coogar: equality is nonsense - men & women are not equal. humanity is not perfect. God's way is for men to be in charge of their homes, marriages, churches and the society. any attempt to upset that balance would create a conflict in the family.

The rabid feminie notion of equality is egregious to the essence and beauty of true complementarity. In family and church, men must absolutely lead. In wider society I have no problem with women being involved or taking the reigns in most regards.

pickabeau1: Cool cat.. Teefee
But some women like projects as they call it... Broken xters they want to reform..

That's could be due to a number of things. She could be just tolerating him due to other pros. Most likely it's her own weak character/lack of self-esteem cum warped application of the nurturing (help-meet) role. It's why a lot get dumped when the man is back on his own two feet. There's a difference between a nurse and a mate, although a mate is both (one for the gyals - feeling generous today ).

bukatyne: I sincerely hope you name one of your kids Bukky or one of the variants
This one you keep in mind my opinions so, na wa

Let your man lead and learn to respect and appreciate that leadership. I pray for 5 men and 2 women on this board regards marriage. You are one of the two. And you will all "fine dine". Can I get an amen?

bukatyne: Not to dampen the fun but how does the bolded look like fun to you?

Learn to let "men be men". Don't nag. Exert a long-term but further reaching influence on them. You will reap the rewards. Encourage, exhort, counsel. They'll respond better and be ready to "war" for you.

TV

_{Still water for me please. No ice!}

slimyem: TV killed this thread with his comment

And I am also able to "unkill" it . I have that power!

ypepe: TV,no preaching here!

I can't promise you no preaching, but I can promise you good stuff!

1.
Gentlemen. Do not stay with a girl who does not respect you, be that due to her attitude or your situation. One must change before you commit to her, or you are in for a bumpy ride.

2.
Don't ever fall for that equality nonsense. In terms of value? In terms of worth? Place her on a pedestal if you so choose. In terms of "expectation"? No, no, no.

Listen to me; "Equaity breeds contempt". One a woman feels she is equal to you, she'll look for an edge. Once she has an edge over you she won't respect you. Once she doesn't respect you, she can't truly love you. Rocky road ahead.

3.
Bukatyne - bless her - once said on this forum "Men and women should worship and submit to each other". Brodas pliss, I take all that is holy beg una; don't fall for this.

A women can find herself by being wholly consumed by her man and family. If a man tries to find himself in a woman, it produces a conflict. She has to be the needy one and he can satisfy that. If he becomes needy, she won't be able to deal with it long-term (unless she is simply out to control him). Either way, she'll start to resent it and ultimately despise him. Rocky road ahead.

If anyone would like to hear the Godly way to circumvent all of this just ask!


Teefee (wind dey blow)

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.

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

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

Swine. Piece of sh1t.

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


TV

debosky: I am a Christian as well, however I do not seek to enforce my views on others, particularly those who do not share my convictions. If society has said homosexuality is normal, permitted and not 'sinful', then those who are normal should have all the rights of normal people. Anything to the contray indicates that society is engaging in hypocrisy.

Which is where you miss the point. I do not seek to convict or condemn anyone for not believing, but equally retain the right to air my views based on my beliefs. And this is not about "gay rights", it's about marriage and what it is, means and does.

debosky: If you are truly advocating a Christian position then your condemnation shouldn't start with marriage , it is about condemnation of homosexuality in all it's forms and, ultimately, outlawing it since you feel the state shouldn't 'change' what has existed before it. To fail to do so reveals an inconsistency in your position.

And I have clearly stated my stance on homosexuality. Whether it should be outlawed is a different question to whether it should be equated to normal functioning. And from a scriptural point of view, sodomy as a crime would have to be considered along with all the other forms of deviant sexual practice.

Like we don't necessarily criminalise pre-marital sex, we shouldn't necessarily prosecute sodomy. But at least we don't expect the state to endorse & reward PMS?

debosky: I wish you well as you do your best - but realise one thing: it's not a competition about who can do it better.

It is about best. Best for children. And you might say it's a consideration of their rights.

debosky: No one is forcing anyone to be homosexual - the obsession with trying to control what they can/can't do by people not impacted by their actions is quite worrying.

Again, you either ignorantly or wilfully miss the point. I do not wish to participate in or validate the homosexual lifestyle. State endorsement via "gay marriage" will force me to do so.


TV

Redlyn: Gay marriage is the civil rights movement of the 21st century.

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".

Redlyn: In Africa we are still far behind. We are still fighting decriminalizing homosexuality in many countries nevermind gay marriage. I take comfort in the fact that the world at large is promoting individual freedom more and more and recognizing people's right to live as they choose.

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".

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.

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.

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

hotboz: truly a prophet.. I appreciate ur response bro.. God bless u. Will still appreciate probable way by which I can still convince her father to make it earlier though.

Why? And how much earlier??

Her father is doing what he feels is best for his daughter. And rightly so. The 2009 birth would have had a big impact, no? Another child could mean completing her education once again takes a back seat. Formalising the relationship now gives you both rights as well as obligations.

The truth is, is that if she becomes your wife, you are then free to take matters into your own hands? I'm working on the assumption that you have WTBs best interest at heart, but that still doesn't guarantee she completes her education?

Personally, if I'm to be objective, I'd advise you stick to the plan. Feel free to make your desires known and give any guarantees you can. But do not force the issue.

What does WTB have to say about this?


Hold body jare...soon come .


TV

Continue to be the responsible father. Keep on courting and woo'ing your WTB. And encourage and support her in her academic endeavours. Make the best possible preparations for your home.

Two years will pass in an instant. Before that time sef, her people will inquire to know "how far".

I like a man that stands up. Now hold firm sir!

All the best for a wonderful married life.


Teefee is now amongst the prophets !


_{no mago-mago on either side}

This is "The family" section. We encourage Men and Husbands here. I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find the right board for "laddishness". If however, you are here to talk about the right way to be a patriaach, the sacrificial husband, men as priests, providors and protectors, then please forgive me, I'm all ears.


TV

We are all ideologues - at best !. The question is, "which of us will you listen too?

@OP, I didn't respond to your post at first as my partcular ideology does not recognise a "partner" relationship. However, if in this instance your partnership is of the conjugal type, I'll say this;

You may have - and mayhaps through no fault on your part - married an insecure man. If your relationship is conjugal, this flaw is at the very least of great concern to you, as how this plays out will affect the substance of your marriage. You take responsibility.

Others - knowingly or unknowingly - may have given him pause for thought and prompted him to act in this manner. Or, you may have - and perhaps inadvertently - given him cause for concern. The advice does not change. Seek to understand the what, when, why and how, and work for the long-term interest of your union.

It doesn't mean he is a bully and it certainly doesn't mean that "divorce" should be contemplated or is even on the cards. This advice is blind to whether you "love" him or not, just the fact that you may be married to him.

If you are a wife, be wise. Taryour and Shizzle11 have spoken well. If not please ignore me .


TV

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think this one will run and run.


Best
TV

thehomer: It is about validating people.

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?

thehomer: 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.

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.

thehomer: Do they want to get married?

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

thehomer: 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?

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

coogar: https://media.tumblr.com/06431ea04be377ea344558a6fdadec61/tumblr_inline_mny3g8ebXL1qz4rgp.gif

Apropos. I'm plagiarising that .

Redlyn: Your question has been asked and answered.

Where? Kindly point it out or re-post and I'll get right on to your question !


TV

dinachi: I am still waiting for the REAL nairaland feminist posters to respond not the trolls and ghosts!

Real feminists? On NL? Sometimes I wish I could do gifs !
You are searching amongst the immoral, dishonest, devious, wounded and simply confused. Are you immortal by any chance? You will wait tire?


Teefee

debosky: Maybe you should say was - society is now endorsing same sex marriage without the necessity of being beneficial to the society, but rather as an endorsement of the fullness of the homosexual person, as opposed to what applied previously.

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

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.

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

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

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


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

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 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

Redlyn: Still haven't answered my simple question.
Do you agree. Yes or no. If no, where do you disagree. Simple.

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


TV

Redlyn: So its all about procreating as you have been unable to point to anything else.

So lets go back to my previous statement. In which way is this false:

"According to you marriage is there solely for procreation. So if you can't procreate there is no real reason for you to marry.
You cannot understand why any non procreating couple would possibly want to marry.
Since It's only about procreating that makes all infertile unions pointless."

Do you agree this is your point of view.

Marriage as endorsed and rewarded by society is about the benefit of marriage to society. Not about race, "orientation", preferences or any other characteristic, immutable or not, genetic or not.

Now, please answer the question posed.

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


TV

Siena: A man being "ready" to have kids and being "paternal" are very different. A non-paternal man will NEVER be ready to have kids.

Kindly explain being "paternal". Especially as it sounds like a condition and not a choice?


TV

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

Pathetic straining.

Marriage is not "heterosexual"

Can Sodomites think with anything other than their g3nitalia?

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

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


TV

itsrandeeboi: Still trying to convince that one? Give it up already. Since Ihedinobi left this thread (and Nairaland) nothing close to a sound argument has been proffered by these guys (aka TV01). All he has been waving in the air is his procreation hogwash which, at best, stands on very wobbly feet. At this point, he is replying just because so he doesn't appear beaten. He has only presented one thing that, in his mind, is an actual point, since he joined this discussion and has consistently run away from pointed questions only to turn around to claim he has debunked them.

That Mr Bean strategy does not win arguments or convince people, my friend.

...just #1 na? Not a single answer. Just evasiveness, whinging and ad hominem. Prison girlfriend applicant. Rightly beach slapped !


TV

wiegraf: Yes. Your values are not their values. Sorry. That's the fact.

Then, and again, you do think the universe is built just for you.

Clearly demonstrate your moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy.

So whatever anyone decides to do, is fine as long as it's according to "their self-arrogated values and moral norms".

1. So let me ask, what of the rights of children? Trumped by perverted desire, selfish values and warped morality huh?
2. If ones values suggest 2 year-olds are fine as sexual partners, I guess that's fine by you as well?
3. How about a dromedary? No problem right? As long as one deems it morally acceptable in their own head?

See why homosexuality is likened paedophilia and bestiality now? And how arrogant, self-arrogation means anything goes?

A deviant with a totally reprobate mind.

wiegraf: The arrogance, selfishness of religious folk always leaves me puzzled. This is one of the most foolish statements I've come across. It's just a wee bit too long else it'd be my new sig. Not just the silly proclamations, eg "homosexuality is simply an immoral practice" and implying sexuality is a choice, you also seem to be saying it's fine to discriminate so long as the xteristic is 'mutable' and you and your 'sane and wise (let alone dog fearing)' bigots disapprove.

Yes, it's a choice and wherever there's a choice, one option is discriminated against. For one that is dehumanising, degrading and dangerous, it's a no-brainer. Especially at a societal level.

wiegraf: To be fair, a positive here is your acknowledging amidst all your rabble that your opposition is simply a moral issue, so you recognize all that nonsense about procreation is just that; nonsense. There is nothing objective about your opposition, gay people can raise kids for instance, simply not in a fashion that fits your moral views

Goot. That's a start, but like I said earlier, I'm afraid I'm not paid to educate you.

Kudos

Lie all you like. It's a question of

1. benefit to society
2. Cost to society
3. Human physiology and functionality
4. Morals & decency
5. Faith - for those who posses it.


TV

Redlyn: If its not about procreation what for the benefit of society distinguishes a committed heterosexual couple from an uncommitted one.
Why should we discriminate - in terms of rewarding them - in favour of the committed couple?

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

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

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

What's it all about ?

HNY

TV