₦airaland Forum

@Enigma,

Please don't let Debosky get away with this sleight of hand;

The question is whether or not the term marriage should be reserved just for males and females, and whether there is any justifiable basis for this, beyond 'traditional understandings'.

This is probably the same argument the whites made about giving blacks votes -what about the rights of the whites? Won't giving all these black folk the vote devalue the

Incorrectly contrasting two totally different things in order to make a non-point.

TV

thehomer: 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.

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 !

thehomer: But only succeeded in revealing your ignorant rambling.

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?

thehomer: 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.

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

itsrandeeboi: What you have done with this post of yours is run away from every point I have put to you because you don't have any cogent response to any of them. A pity, I was hoping for a sound argument but all you have done is blow hot air. I asked what you are doing to help poor, orphaned children to give them a good upbringing and you say you procreate? And, in your head, that is a sound answer? So, because you procreate, orphan children will rejoice because their futures are all bright and happy? You must have LSD rainbows shooting out of your bum!

Really, being homosexual is a chouce? Then heterosexuality must be a choice too. Pray tell, when did you "choose" to be attracted to women?

Really, wiegraf and the others were right. You are offering nothing close to a sound argument. Wonder why Ihedinobi left being the voice of the other side to you seeing as you are doing such a terrible job of it. You sound just like Chibuihem Amalaha!

Nope, I answered every point you made - and in turn. Clearly demonstrating that they were all non points. My position rested on the following arguments;

1. What are the benefits of homosexual "marriage" to society. Why should society reward a committed same-sex couple and not an uncommitted pair or even two men that don't know each other from Adam? Why?

2. What about childrens rights and their best interest? Why should we by design deny them a father or mother and celebrate such wickedness? Why should society accede to the demand that adult desire trumps childrens rights?

3. The health and social costs to the individual and society of encouraging sodomy. Not to mention the moral cost - and I fully understand non-Christians do not accept a moral position, but there is a cost.

4. Why resort to race and gender comparisons when this is about homosexual desire and behaviour? Sodomitic acts remain a choice. Homosexuality is not genetically hard-wired, race and gender are - and demonstrably so. And so obviously contrary to human physiology, therefore intrinsically disordered.

5. Why do you refuse to see that to extend marriage as it is and has always been to gays, means it is no longer marriage, but something else, and we are left without anything that does what marriage has historically done? Why do sodomites feel they have the right to re-define marriage to lay hold of it.

6. Why do you scream terms words such as equality, rights, consenting adults etc, but do not argue for other adult consensual relationship types. Polyamoury, polygamy etc.

7. 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. Please show that homosexual unions are substantively the same in context, content or outcome as heterosexual unions.

8. Why do you have to keep traducing normal couples to make a case for same-sex unions? Are the rights and worth of sodomitic unions not self-evident? Can they not stand alone?

9. Why should rights for sodomites compromise religious rights. I bake, I will sell bread, pastries, doughnuts etc to anyone, but will not bake a cake celebrating the fallacy that is "gay marriage" - and I can be prosecuted for that?

Not a single answer between you. Nothing based on religion, faith, sin or God 0! No references to incest or bestiality. Just the facts. What do l get in return? Contrivance and buzzwords. Epic fail. I wasn't exerted in the slightest. lt was like a turkey shoot! l feel like a bully .


TV

itsrandeeboi: You do realize that we blacks weren't always this accepted on the global stage as equals, right? Even now, when internationally important issues are being discussed, black nations still take the back seat and are seldom heard. Does that mean we are not good and proper? Think of women in government. Do you you think a woman should be president of this country? How come if you propose this idea to most Nigerian men, they would yell "What?!! A woman?!! No way!!" ? Shouldn't women be as celebrated in the fields of government and politics as men? Aren't they "right, good and proper"?

Yawn, yawn, yawn. Why are you introducing race and gender into a discussion about behaviour and desire?

Race and gender are immutable genetically pre-determined characteristics. Desires and behaviour are not. Stop feeding the board red herring and argue you position on it's merits. Like a real man !

itsrandeeboi: You suggest in this post that there is only one type of human being. Then followed it up by saying we have male and female. Be consistent, brah. Language changes always to better define what it couldn't clearly define before. I don't have any issues with polygamy so I don't know why you keep throwing in polygamy. I have clearly outlined while homosexuality and peadophilia/beastiality/necrophilia and the rest are not the same as have several others on this thread and I will not go back into that.

Duh? How many types of human are there? And is the fact that they are sexed suggestive of two different species? I suppose children are yet another. Why did you come back to this thread again !

Language changes? Perhaps, but not to call what cannot be as if it were. A homosexual union can never qualify as a marriage. That would not be redefinition, it would be butchery.

itsrandeeboi: I don't know where you got that anybody thinks marriage was constituted to infringe on anyone's rights. If it was then gay people should not be clamouring to be included. You keep bringing up procreative coupling like it is the only reason people get married. I have said before that not all people get married to have children. Think of a menopausal 60 year old woman getting married to a 72 year old man. Yes, it happens. Clearly, their chances at having children is tending towards zero so their reason for getting married is more love/desire to stay together for the rest of their lives than have kids. Would you say their union is null, since children are not involved?

Gay people are, gayness isn't. QED !

Procreative in principal if not always in practice. The premises of male/female remains and re-enforces the principle regardless of outcome.

itsrandeeboi: Procreation is not the sole purpose of marriage - you keep carrying it around like a banner when it clearly no longer holds true. In fact, marriage today just for the purpose of having kids is a marriage of convenience - to serve that specific purpose and nothing more. People can procreate without getting married so stop making it like a woman's egg can only be fertilized when she is brandishing a marriage certificate.

Procreation is the reason marriage was instituted. And a marriage for the purpose of children is more than convenient. What other reason is there for marriage that serves state interest or requires state involvement? Waiting !

The state rewards the couples commitments as it is in the best long-term interest of both child and state. A couple merely living together are not deemed married or afforded the rights/benefits of those that are, regardless of whether they have children.

itsrandeeboi: Minimal cost to and minimal intervention by society? How much does homosexuality cost society? In modern society, a man and a woman don't necessarily make an ideal setting - alla the drunk man and drug addicted woman I asked you to imagine above. Sound minds make an ideal setting, whether male or female. Afterall, there are kids that grew up in foster care and homes and still turn out fine in spite of not having a defined mother and father.

Google the health cost of homosexuality, to both individual and state. Start with Gay bowel syndrome. Not pretty I tell you ! The cost to society of homosexuality far outweighs smoking and we do not encourage that so we?

A stable opposite sex union is the best setting for children. Nobody is championing dysfunction here. And for sodomites, it's inherent. Fact!

itsrandeeboi: Sodomy is all about sex - true. But homosexuality and sodomy are two different things; you're just interchanging them to suit your purposes so you can score points. Sodomy is about sex. So is missionary style and all the other styles straight couples engage in. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are about relationships, so you should get that straight.

And marriage is about neither, so whats your point exactly?

itsrandeeboi: As has been pointed out here, incest is a grey area. If i remember my bible correctly, Lot's daughters had children by him. I don't remember anywhere the bible said God punished them for that. That is clearly incest. A lot of cultures have supported incestuous relationships. So I can't comment on incest. If I come across an incestuous couple, I would only voice personal reservations about their choice; not try to get the government to lock them up as far as they are not infringing anybody's fundamental rights.

Can't recall mentioning incest? But whatever the case, it serves society to have a position on decency and morals. Especially where sex is concerned.

itsrandeeboi: Ha - talk about societal benefits! Think armed robbers, rapists, serial killers, assassins - name them. They came from the union of a man and woman, didn't they? What kind of benefits have they accrued to humanity? So don't make it look like straight relationships only produce positive benefits.

What an inane point ! I'm not sure I can dignify this with a response. Like really, this is an argument for gay marriage?

itsrandeeboi: Besides, i keep asking the question, to help those poor orphan kids out there have proper homes, how many have you adopted?

I chose to procreate and nurture! However, if you allow me to implement my Christian worldview end-to-end, I promise the problem will clear up !


TV

itsrandeeboi: Ah, my bad, didn't read page four, else I wouldn't have bothered commenting.

The real reason why you shouldn't have bothered is because you had nothing salient to add. But I'll show why momentarily. !


TV

itsrandeeboi: If you want to tow that line, why not have this; there will always be whites who think blacks are monkeys, wild animals, slaves, not good enough to marry white people, less than human and simply not normal or civilized. Should we, on the basis of the fact that these people will always exist, return to slavery and returning to the jim crow laws that came before civil rights gained enough strength?

And vice-versa. What has race to do with marriage? What have immutable genetic characteristics to do with chosen behaviour? Remain in cloud cuckoo land if you so choose and convince yourself that anyones preferences or behaviour dictates their rights? Let your willy lead you? !

itsrandeeboi: It still falls flat. A re-defining marriage to include homosexual relationships does not not mean straight people can't get married any more, so your point is very moot. The basics still won't changed; marriage will still be the legal union of two people for whatever purposes they deem fit, be it child bearing, love or anything else. Afterall, people get married for visas now, don't they? I don't see you guys complaining over that, when you consider that they have no plans to have children or even stay together. Redefining the word marriage makes it include a wider bracket not exclude the initial one it covered.

It's not about normal or abnormal, straight or gay, or hetero vs. homo. It's about marriage and what marriage is. How it's defined, the principle behind it and the purpose it serves.

To rework it for sodomites means it has to become something else. We take marriage as it is, make it something else and still call it marriage, whilst leaving nothing in the place of what marriage was. Stop trying to understand or discuss this with your todger !

itsrandeeboi: As for adultery and consummation, those still apply. What would you define adultery and consummation as? Do they apply to only one gender or to both? If they apply only to one gender, then yes, it could become nonsensical in the homosexual context but if not, them it still applies either way. The rules governing adultery and consummation are drawn by the fact there is a legal union i.e marriage not the sex of the people involved. Besides, both are basically moral concepts and barely have real bearing on legality.

Sharrap dia;
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/adultery-and-the-same-sex-marriage-bill/
http://protectthepope.com/?p=6546
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/civil-servants-drafting-uk-marriage-law-lost-words-over-gay-sex021212

itsrandeeboi: You can't look at it from only a canonical christian point of view; not everybody are christians.

No one is forcing the Christian position on anyone. Unfortunately, "gay marriage" forces the immorality on Christians, as we cannot refuse to endorse or celebrate sodomy !
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/six-ways-gay-marriage-england-and-wales-isn%E2%80%99t-quite-%E2%80%98equal%E2%80%99170713

itsrandeeboi: 1) If our sole interest in the marriage arrangement is solely due to the procreative possibility, then a man and woman who want to have children don't need legal codification either and as such, don't have to get married to do so, afterall, all they need is to have sex and voila, here come the kids. You also realize that a man does not need to have sex with a woman any more to procreate and so, as far as he can get a donor for an egg, he can always have a kid, without even having to meet said donor. The legal codification is to make the union legit in the eyes of the law and bestow on the spouses the rights that accrue to them as legal partners in the union.

The best interests of the child and the state both converge when the father is committed to the mother in parenting any offspring they both have. That's why the state rewards marriage. It's the economy stupid - saying from a well know straight brother ! Plus we all know the stats and the costs to individuals and society of broken homes

itsrandeeboi: What something originates as does not mean what it will always be. Ask those that subscribe to the evolution theory and you will hear that we human beings haven't always been like this. Marriage, like government, education, health care and nearly every other institution you can think of may have started with very basic functions that have been expanded to encompass so much more than was previously thought of.

Yawn. If it changes to become something else. lets call it something else. And if an appetite remains for what it was, lets create something new and leave well alone. Simples!

itsrandeeboi: 2) What does it matter if an opposite sex pairing is the basis for procreation or a good setting for children's upbringing WHEN THERE ARE NO CHILDREN TO TALK OF? Marriage is one thing; child birth and upbringing is quite another. You can do either without the other and you wouldn't be breaking the law, so don't make it look like you have to be married to have kids and bring them up properly. The much lauded Ben Carson was the product of a single parent home which clearly lacks one of the oh-so-important parts of the ideal home setting and it appears to me he is doing just fine.

Does the fact that we can separate procreation from nurture mean we should do so by design? Or that it is the best interest of the children? Stop letting your desires lead the discussion

itsrandeeboi: 3) Says who? So, tell me, if you were an orphan about to be adopted into a family, and you are given two options; a drunkard, abusive man who beats up his wife and kids with his drug addled wife who half the time doesn't know what is going on around her AND a gay couple that have no such issues and will love you and give you everything that a child needs for optimum growth and development. Now you are telling me you will pick the abusive family JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A MAN AND WOMAN THERE? I don't need to rehash this, no matter how you incentivise it, a straight couple will always be likely to want their won kids. Not many woman want to be saddled with another woman's kid. So I don't the issue with allowing a gay couple to adopt them and give them a life and opportunity they would otherwise be denied.

Why do you have to compare a worse scenario normal couple with a exemplary gay couple. Straight bashing abi? ! I seen you!

itsrandeeboi: 4) Let's take up your "normal" and see how well it stands. Think of effeminate guys or siamese/conjoined twins. They are not normal right? But who created them? God, right? So, if they are not normal, then God made a mistake, didn't he? And it is now we humans that have to correct God's mistake, right? But if you say no, God didn't make a mistake, then why are we trying to get the effeminate guy to act manly or to separate the conjoined twins? Aren't they "normal" by God's standards; the person who created them? So who now decides what is normal; we or God?

We are all dysfunctional to a degree. Do we now celebrate all genetic, character and dysfunction and statutarily codify them as rights?

Marriage and the best interests of children should always be at the forefront of our thinking and policy, not adult desires, moral or not. You shout rights and trample all over childrens as a starting point .

TV

wiegraf: Good clown, what years of research are you speaking of? You do realize babies cry because, well, that's what they do? I carried that baby from the mama and gave her to another mama of the same race etc, you think the baby will.....notice?

You really wrote that believing or believing that anyone truly thinks children can simply be passed around like used cars? Sodomites and their vanities !

wiegraf: So, exactly who will the baby form bonds with then? You do know there are many adopted kids that well know they are adopted but have absolutely no desire to meet their biological parents, no? Let alone those that don't even know they're adopted. Steve jobs was one of the former for the most part. But no, all those adopted kids are not in families because they do not meet your standards. I'd ask how dare you, then again you're religious. You already assume this universe was created just for you

So adoption or separation from "biological" parents is best for children? Presumably you'd push for this as policy to ensure sodomites recieve all the "product" they desire?

wiegraf: Perhaps you aren't aware of single fathers raising kids? Maybe they don't exist. Should the children be seized because they're mysigonists? They are not letting the women take care of them, and thats definitely their job. I mean the only thing women are good for is child rearing and cooking. Perhaps gossip as well. Men? Bringing home the bacon. Strictly strong, macho bs only, the good stuff. All those single parents aren't taking care of their children........because you say so

And single fathers are extolling the virtues of raising children sans mothers? Or perhaps screaming it's so much better without women? Or maybe they are single fathers by design? Any sex that willfully procures or abets procurement of a child to raise singly is an abuser.

wiegraf: Do you even know what misogyny is? Don't use big words if you don't understand them. And it works both ways, see misandry...

I would suggest you so likewise with homosexualist use of the word bigot or the totemic homophobia !

wiegraf: Btw , many many gay parents around, with their families researched etc. Guess what? No different than your average family. No ojuju anywhere. Can't be bothered linking cause of phone, but I'll be back with that. And last I checked, it wasn't even a case of adoption, it was their own children, most use their own DNA, so even by your warped nonsensical logic, what's the problem? Unlike adopted kids, at least one of the parents is the biological 'natural' one, so what are you on about?

Gay biased research, without the historical context, proper controls or sample size. Doctored to say what the perverse want to hear. As long as it lets you feel good and moral about what you do with your member, you'll pull anything out of your arse.

wiegraf: And not, I would even argue it's the worse option, as if they're willing to invest into nurturing children there are many (abandoned by your good and proper straight folk mostly) in less than condusive environments, eg homes. And a child is a child, all of them deserving of love and proper care. This obsession with rearing your own child escapes me.

It's always in a childs best interest to be placed with a stable married couple - of opposite sexes.

wiegraf: So no, bros. You don't have a sliver of a case. You don't het to decide for the rest what a family is. That's pure nonsense....

We all know what's best. Disputing that because you have genital confusion is perverse.

wiegraf: Your fellow religionist is the one that points out just how prejudiced your position is, the exact same thing with racism, yet here you are....

Now, imagine back in the day a black family wanting to raise an oyinbo kid...

But noooo, pls proceed with your nonsense

Race is an immutable characteristic that does not predicate behaviour. Sodomy is simply an immoral practice. The sane and wise (let alone the God fearing) will never elevate it to be moral, or deem a homosexual couple the equivalent of a mixed sex couple or worthy of the marriage institution.


TV

thehomer: 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.

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.

thehomer: 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.

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

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

Redlyn: Forget about this guy. his whole argument is marriage is there solely for procreation. So if you can't procreate there is no real reason for you to marry. He cannot understand why any non procreating couple could possibly want to marry. since It's only about procreating that makes infertile unions worthless and pointless.

Au contraire mon frere.

I have consistently pivoted my response to you on the "benefit to society" claim.

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 terms of rewarding them - in favour of the committed couple?


TV

No biggie.
Was a little bit sniffy - excuse the pun - at first, but when I realised they couldn't do it themselves, needs must.

TV Jr is going through a really snotty time at the mo', so I do it pretty much by default at morning and evening bath times.
Salty and slimy boogers ! Be sure to have somewhere to spit quicktime sha!

Once at his swimming lesson a large blob appeared. Everyone just looked askance - you know oyinbos na! It was one of the few occasions wifey was in the pool with him. I beckoned her to the side, applied vigorous suction and dashed to the loo. See applause, as if not, na go slow be dat. Lesson abandoned sef. One of the dads said he'd seen nothing like it - even in a war zone.

Hailing all snot sucking soldiers !


TV

wiegraf: So, I read that, and all I noted was a really happy bigot spewing nonsense, cowardly and frankly disgraceful opinions, then congratulating himself.

And you are a shameless reprobate. We can do this all day, or you can simply back up your asinine assertion.

wiegraf: Did you read my for starters? You provided absolutely no evidence to back up your assertion that two men couldn't provide the necessary condition other than 'if you ask me as a father'. Yet you expect to be indulged??

You made the claim. And contrary to thousands of years of history and all critically reviewed research. You prove it and stop gnashing your teeth in frustration !

Please tell the board how two men "provide the necessary condition" and as good as or better (your desperate claim) care, than a biological mother and father?

You can start by telling us which one seeds and which one gestates, then move on to explaining which one' body undergoes tremendous physiological & psychological change in preparation for the new arrival. Then perhaps, which one the baby naturally bonds with immediately after birth and suckles - having already formed a relationship with from the womb.

How about how the child will appreciate your tearing him/her away from the biological mother who you have reduced to a mere "breeder". Willfully denying the child the continued association, heritage, love care and nurture of the natural mother. How will you replace the vital developmental triggers that only a mother can provide, or the balance and adjustment from having two opposite sex parents. Misogynist child abuser .

wiegraf: No, I'm clearly not asking for that you clown. You CLEARLY lack judgment, and I think you should be more worried about the fact that your kids will have to be raised by an atrocity like yourself than the homo family next doors business.

Clown? The fool says in his heart "there is no God" ! You lack understanding.

My son is the result of loving procreation and benefits from ongoing nurture by loving biological parents. Not something the "sodomites" next door can grasp or emulate. At best, they procure children like products - for their vanity projects - in an attempt to be what they are not, family.

wiegraf: So, again, do you have anything better than nonsense like your opinion or the bible to back up your assertion that a homo couple cannot provide a conducive environment for child rearing?

Not for procreation. And for child rearing, like I said, wolves have been known to raise children, so what's your point? Gay homosexuals will always be second best. Although I admit, slightly preferable to wolves !

I'm the Daddy !


TV

thehomer: 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.

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 .

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

Logicboy03: Is it me or is it just that this guy has no idea about what he is talking about and he is damn proud of it?

Yes, it is you !

wiegraf: @TV, for starters, exactly how are homosexuality and het relationships different? Because you say so?

Not because I say so, simply because they are. But if you'd like to show exactly how they are the same in make-up, content or outcome, please feel free to share with the board.

wiegraf: Do you think I added the bit about procreation because I enjoy discussions with proud bigots?

Ey yah! Feel your anguish. But please spare a thought for poor old me having to engage a shameless incoherent reprobate. And one whose thought process is driven by how he employs his tallywhacker !.

wiegraf: I hope you have something other than the bible to back up your implied claim that a homo couple cannot provide the same sort of care a het couple can manage.

I didn't actually make that claim, although it is blatantly obvious. Any meaningful research will attest to just that. Wild animals have been known to "care" for children. What is important is the qualitative nature of the care. And most importantly the crucial input from two opposite sex parents - which we are beginning to understand is crucial for triggering certain developments as a child matures.

As a father, if you are claiming that two men could raise my son as well or better than my wife and I, I would take that as evidence of how depraved you quite clearly are.

Marriage is the best setting for children, particularly where those children are the biological offspring of both parents. The risks are greatly increased if one parent is non-biological, which would always be the case with a same-sex couple.

wiegraf: I suppose it similar to how back in the day, black man, women etc couldn't vote because we were inferior?

Yawn. Devoid of a critical argument? Resort to mis-analogies and noxious ones at that. No, I don't think it is. Not like black struggle for civil rights or the restriction on black people marrying whites either. Both of those where about race, not marriage. Try harder !

Redlyn: Some countries have domestic partnerships but not marriage, which grants a lot of the rights but not all. Is introducing recognized civil unions acceptable to you? And this needs to be recognized by the state because there is no point entering such agreement on personal level if you cannot use this status where it is most important.

So you understand marriage is male/female for obvious reasons?

The questions remains why the state would afford any benefits to a same sex couple. Even a "committed" couple as there is no difference between them (from a societal point of view) and an "uncommitted" couple, or indeed, any two men who don't even know each other. It is simply discrimination, which is fine, but there has to be a valid reason for it. For example we discriminate against the blind when it comes to driving for obvious reason.

If a legal agreement is entered into by the couple I see no reason why statutory intervention is required?

And as a Christian, it's a plain no, for obvious reasons.

Redlyn: You can argue if marriage was not created there would be no reason to create it for gay people, but fact is marriage does exist. and it is accessible to all males/females pairs regardless of their ability to procreate even those can quite visibly NOT procreate so the there is clearly flexibility there.

It is accessible to "ALL". It is defined as male/female. It wasn't created for "non-gay" people. It patently originated due to the procreative potetial of that pairing and the benefit to society. Homosexuals are absolutely permitted to marry, but reject this basic premise. To insist it be re-defined - and in a way that strips it of its essence - just so they can access it "another way" is just wrong.

At some point, if they remain married long enough, all married couples cease to be able to procreate, however, the basic male/female premise remains intact.

Redlyn: even those can quite visibly NOT procreate so the there is clearly flexibility there.The decision to get married and the acceptance of their union by the state is clearly NOT because of child bearing.

So? As explained above, the premise remains intact.
One of the beauties of marriage is that it requires very little touch and despite the procreative principle not manifesting in every instance, it holds firmly enough for it to do exactly what is required. The principle is totally absent for same sex couples, thereby disqualifying them from marriage in practice.

Redlyn: Gay persons can adopt an orphan child and raise him within this secure structure as well if it is just to facilitate raising a child. Anyway no point for me to belabour the points further.

Needless to say, I do not feel it's in a child' best interest to be placed with a homosexual couple (or any single person). It's a different discussion, but I believe we should always place them with a married couple - with incentives if required.

If homosexual unions are deemed worthy by homosexuals, they shouldn't feel the the need for validation by accessing an institution which is predicated on an opposite pairing. And certainly not by butchering it to fit.

Like I said, a wrap, but appreciate your efforts - and the opportunity to torment a couple of muppets !


TV

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

@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

bukatyne: I see this as a result of the fall of man.

Man as in generically male and female or just men?

bukatyne: Since that day in the garden of Eden, there has been the desire for men to oppress women.

So just men then, women developed no dysfunctional desires as a result of the fall?

bukatyne: Things seem to get worse marriage and relationship wise because women have decided not to take their poo anymore

So women were simply unenlightened, and now that they are, mens fallen nature makes relations between them even worse?

bukatyne: It takes a spiritually regenerated man to know how to relate to a woman as his equal

As women of course do not require regeneration?

You respond to misogyny with misandry and a side dish of confusion? One thing is for sure, with this kind of scriptural incoherence and muddled thinking, things will not get any better.

Bukatyne, I sense you are very earnest and applaud that, but almost every aphorism you make seems too come with a concerted effort to feminise Christianity. "Feminianity?" Sound like it's neither fish nor fowl. Christianity stands alone and cannot be added to.

bukatyne: Not to sound religious

Don't worry, you don't, not in the slightest.


TV

@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?
2. What are the "various legal and social benefits" that society gift or accrue to this "family" unit and why.
3. How are they in any way different to the "pair" who seek no societal endorsement of their union? Or any other "pair"?
4. How are they in any way different to a second couple, identical to them, who seek no formal societal recognition of their coupling?
5. Why should society discriminate in their favour over the pair, other pairs or the 2nd identical couple simply because they formalise their union?

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

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

To both those I respond as follows;

Marriage and the right to marry are not predicated on sexual orientation, inclination or proclivity. It is pitiful and speaks volumes that all homosexual positions are sex-led and inclination-driven. For the same reason it is also a contrivance to claim marriage is based on animus against homosexuals or denies them rights.

Indeed, it is fairer to say that homosexuals by dint of a disordered appreciation of their God given - or natural if you prefer - endowments reject marriage and eschew the rights freely available to them.

Marriage has always been a male/female pairing, as it’s the potential procreative outcome of this binary model that satisfies a societal need, thereby engendering support and institutionalisation by society.

Remove that in principle and all you are left with is feelings and/or sex. Pray tell, why does that warrant societal endorsement and support, let alone institutionalisation?

Hypocrisy to boot. If all of this is based on notions of equality, tolerance and freedoms, why is the struggle not for marriage to be redefined to capture all possible kinds of consenting adult arrangements? Why are homosexuals denying rights to others?

Are polygamists not deserving? What of polyamorists? How about a bisexual variant or inclusion for paedophiles - we can simply be creative with the age of consent, as is being done in some jurisdictions? And feelings/intimacy for/with animals can't be discounted as has been touched upon, especially if there is no discernable harm or even evident pleasure - on the part of the animal that is !


TV

Redlyn: Yes, and things change. Slavery and apartheid also get abolished. We evolve closer and closer towards true equality and freedom for all humans. We challenge the traditional to improve the quality of life for all.

Gutting marriage so sodomites can partake is not progress. Diminishing marriage for the 98%+ to make it equal for the tiny minority is not equality. Challenging is not necessarily improving and the traditional is not necessarily wrong or bad. Sodomites are free to practice sodomy. Marriage has endured through anthropological history due to it's benefit to society.

Redlyn: Are you saying reproduction is the only reason for marriage? Any heterosexual can get married whether or not they can reproduce, how come reproduction suddenly enters the argument for homosexuals. Homosexuals want to marry for the same reasons old people want to marry.

Please, please, please. I just ate boxing day dinner, that doesn't even bear thinking about . The reproductive principle is at the heart of what marriage is for. It is absent with gay couples, therefore marriage is simply not in view for them.

Redlyn: Heterosexuals can adopt kids, a lot of these are orphans or unwanted children anyway. So why the hypocrisy? If you want to debate I think you need to find things that are unique to homosexuality otherwise it is pointless all this special pleading.

A male/female union is the best and setting for raising kids. No gainsaying, no hypocrisy. That's the whole point,there is nothing about homosexuality that demands marriage, It's the sodomites who are making the special plea, to be included based on their inclinations, when it's their inclinations that make it a non-starter for them. Sodomites have the exact same functionality that normal people have, they just choose to use it differently, hence rejecting marriage in its essence. The plea for it is to normalise their disordered behaviour - instead of their normalising the use of their natural functionality - and force its moral acceptance on the vast majority that consider it disordered at best

Redlyn: It does I agree, but you must realise the world / country is not christian so you should not necessarily outlaw these kinds of victimless social issues. No one is asking you to like it, but to tolerate it as the world is diverse and the freedom of all humans should be promoted as much as possible. The worst countries in quality of life and most human rights violations are the most intolerant countries.

We don't persecute it, but neither do we recognise it as marriage, as it simply cannot be. And don't label it victimless. Moral questions aside, it carries a cost to society and the individuals. Deny it at your peril.

The health implications and attendant costs to society are disproportionately high and the lifestyle egregious. The following link is to the memeorial page of a renowned gay chorale. Click on a few, the vast majority die relatively young - and in the west for that matter. http://turtlecreek.org/index.php?/memorial/. It's not victimless or cost free and pushing it using high profile celebs or funky portrayals in the media does not change that.

Redlyn: You dont like it? Very simple, dont be homosexual.

That would be plausible in a sense. However once codified legally, it will be pushed as moral and good and outright championed by the state and all its arms and wherever it has influence. Schools are now obliged to portray homosexuality and the lifestyle as wholesome and proper and on a par with normal opposite sex unions. And to young and vulnerable children. It is no longer personal or private and those that don't like or want it are having it forced on them. It can only lead to conflict. Everyone and everything is being gradually homosexualised.

Redlyn: What about lesbians is it ok if there is no sodomy? You are just saying you dont like it. Call it deviant all you like, doesnt change the fact that it is just 2 consenting adults living their life in love. No need for you to interfere in this. You are able to live your own life as you see fit. Equality and freedom for all not tyranny of the majority imposing your christian views on everyone.

First read my response above, second sodomy covers all same sex sexual activity, thirdly a same sex pairing is not equal to an opposite sex union. What is being pursued is conformity not equality.

No to ssmarriage no to ssadoption.


TV

thehomer: Ihedinobi has run from his thread.

Maybe you're inanity drove him away !

thehomer: I'll be your tormentor for the rest of it.

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

"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.

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

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

thehomer: 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?

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.

thehomer: What then is the essence of marriage?

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.

thehomer: 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

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.

thehomer: How are they nonsensical?

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.

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

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

thehomer: 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.

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.

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

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

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

No one is stopping you from showing another

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

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

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

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.

thehomer: This paragraph is devoid of meaning.

Like sodomitic marriage then?

thehomer: 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.

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

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

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?

thehomer: 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.

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.

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

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

Ihedinobi, how far? Hope all's well.

itsrandeeboi: I would like to ask you, do you think you have more rights than a gay person?

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.

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.

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.

itsrandeeboi: This point falls flat when you begin to consider other things which have had their definitions modified over time. For instance, parenthood. Before adoptions became a thing, parenthood was generally only attributable to people with their own biological children. Or adulthood which has had ages modified to fit whatever society feels is the requirement for adulthood at the time.
Definitions change as humans change.

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.

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.

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.

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

itsrandeeboi: Okay. So if you take away childbirth and having children from a married couple, what are you left with? Two people who just want to spend the rest of their lives together, recognized by the law as being in a union (and where applicable, religion). You also realise there are heterosexual marriages where the couple do not plan on having any kiss. Forget that long story of kids and their right to be raised by their biological parents because you're making it sound like homosexuals raid the homes of heterosexual couples for their kids. What about the kids at orphanages and motherless babies' homes? One set do not have parents. The others are not wanted by said biological parents. Most straight couples are too caught up trying to have their own kids to try adopting these children you are defending so assiduously. May I ask how many orphans/parent-less kids you have given a home? But when a gay couple comes to adopt them and give them one, you deny them hope of something as close to normal family life as they could possibly ever get?

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.
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.
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.
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".

itsrandeeboi: Really? So if a muslim president is elected next in Nigeria and he says it is in our National interests to pray to Allah by twelve pm every day, to be enforced by law enforcement, would you support him on the grounds that faith informs everything everyone does and can't be divorced from one's politics?

That last paragraph is actually you getting it wrong. Homosexuals cannot ask heterosexuals to stop taking a straight lifestyle down their throats then turn around to ram their own lifestyle down straight people's throats. You also realize they are a really small minority compared to the total population and will always be. Like physically deformed people are a minority against fully fit people.?

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?

itsrandeeboi: You don't want to go into the number of everyday defining words that were coined less than a century ago. Much of ancient speak involved describing things as against giving them actual names. Same could apply to homosexuality which has been proven not to be a modern invention. Besides, if we are to go by the Bible, homosexuality was a huge thing in Sodom. So they must have had a name for it then. Sodomy, of cours, is also a modern word.

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.

itsrandeeboi: Functionally, all humans are the same. Practically, we are as diverse as the sands on the sea shore. All humans have two hands, right? Doesn't mean all humans use both hands for carpentry. We all see through our two eyes but we do not perceive the same things. Human beings were not made in black and white as even our races show. There are grey areas we do not understand and we shouldn't just disparage because they are not like us and we don't understand what they do as far as they are not infringing on our basic rights.

Nobody has shown that sexuality is by choice or not. I don't think anybody woke up one morning and chose to be straight so saying the same of a gay person would be unfair. It is still a matter for debate (except you are reading Chibuihem Amahala's project report which was laughed at by even homophobes)

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.

itsrandeeboi: So what is marriage's definite function and what in this function cannot apply to homosexual couples? If you bring up child bearing, then a heterosexual union where the couple have no biological children and don't want to adopt is invalid, isn't it?

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.

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

Davidlyan hello, hope you are well. I was so sure that you were away "wifing" and would return with testimony. How far?

@All, I'm going to pivot my input off this point made by DL;

davidylan: If homosexuals have demanded rights to marry, why should we stand in their way?

Firstly we should ask what is marriage? And secondly what constitutes a right, or at least this particular one?

Simply put, marriage is and has always been the commitment between a man and a woman. It was never ever predicated on one's "sexual orientation" - whatever that is claimed to be, or however you "self-identify".

"Homosexuals are not denied the same right as any other person - the right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Anthropologically, there would be no need for marriage if children - the natural outcome - were not in view. To extend "marriage" as we know it to homosexuals, we have to change what marriage is. It becomes merely the validation of desire between adults (which as has been pointed out is hypocrisy by Western nations as Polygamy is consensual, but they are not clamouring for that - yet?). We don't need to enshrine that in law or institutionalise it. If that was all marriage represented, it simply wouldn't have come into existence.

It also denies children the right to be raised by their biological parents, which is codified by the UN. Rights jam rights?

davidylan: The argument that homosexuals should not have rights to marry was one that was extremely difficult to swallow for a long time UNTIL i realized what the real problem truly was - many christians (especially those in the west) are finding it difficult to divorce their faith from politics. When faith starts to drive our views on public policy, we are bound to get into trouble.

Homosexuals have rights to marry, adopt kids and carry on their own idea of a family. As long as they are not forcing it down our throats, so be it.

Firstly here, true faith colours and motivates everything one does, to divorce one's faith from ones politics, is to divorce oneself from said faith. Please take stock here. And the Christian worldview has as much right to inform public policy as any other.

Your last point is contradictory. If homosexuals have the right to marriage and kids, surely they have the right to ram it down throats exactly the same way heterosexuals do. This testifies to conflict in your position?

Now to close. The terms "gay", "homosexual", "heterosexual" are pretty much fallacious as currently used. Gay as we all know is an usurped word. Homosexual and heterosexual are neologisms, coined barely a century (or maybe 2 ago).

There are not two distinct species of human being i.e. homosexual and heterosexual. Functionally all humans - with the exception of a few outlying and tragic instances, are functionally the same, the only distinction being male or female. The real distinction is those who practice normal unitive/procreative sex, as obvious and evidenced by function and outcome and those who practice a deviant form which possesses neither of those qualities or outcome. It is rightly called sodomy.

Further it has been shown that this "practice", is not biologically pre-determined (any more than any other sexual deviancy). Regardless of that fact, indulging in sodomy is a choice.

Marriage has a definite purpose. Varying it to validate deviant sexual practice is deleterious, through whatever perspective one views it. In regards to my earlier poser of rights jam rights, it's not. It's really adult desires trumping childrens right.

No rights are being denied anyone, what is being sought is endorsement of deviant behaviour - by legally codifying and enforcing a gutted form of marriage - and ultimately silencing of any dissenting voices.

Dressing this up in the language of rights equality, tolerance, etc. is bull. There is no plausible argument for sodomy, sodomitic, marriage or sodomitic adoption. Anthropologically it is deviant and deleterious. From a Christian point of view it's simply immoral

Please take heed, while you are busy divorcing your faith and politics (both of which you are in error), they will try and forcibly separate you from your faith.

Merry x-mas


TV

ruffhandu: What do you expect, he has to also claim he has moved on. I guess that didn't happen in Nigeria.
I heard a shocking stuff recently of a lady in the UK who was getting married to a guy and was displaying the pix of another man she'll marry after two years to her friend.

It's not a mere claim, it's quite obvious when you see them and by the way he speaks of her. Moreso, they are not actually married, just living together. There were others, but with this one it was apparently evident from very early on.

And she is more than able too. No fault divorce is one of the worse crime perpetrated against
marriage.


TV

I would think so.

However for at least one of them other considerations - rightly or wrongly - outweigh this, if the kids aren't the reason they claim to be doing it?.

I personally know of a case where the wife insisted on divorcing her husband - and for no cogent reason? Everyone that got involved was baffled. She simply couldn't justify it.

It was so odd, they lived in the house together for over a year as the divorce was processed. After 3 kids 0! Typically they ask the man to leave, but as he had done absolutely nothing, he stayed during that time. All the while begging her to reconsider. And primarily because he doted on his kids.

And here's the irony; he now claims to be happier than he has ever been, loves his new woman to bits and says his ex-wife was a log in bed - but he would still have stayed for the kids. Can't really speak for her sha.


Hmmm...

TV

Medicine after death? If this is heartfelt and there are no other "issues", reconciliation is always a possibility.

Perhaps it will serve others.

Hmmm...

TV

Is this account true? If not, is it your "work"? Plagiarism is so shabby.

If it is, it's a horrible one but possibly best approached on a reductionist basis.

At the core of this matter is the terrible crime you committed. At it's heart the well being of this lady and her child.

You have seriously wronged this young woman, her family and even the child - regardless of whether he is your child - by harming his mother. I don't doubt your repentance or even the ensuing forgiveness - divinely that is. In an earthly sense however, the consequences of your act continue to reverberate and there may well be a price to pay - and not just by you.

Think how traumatised and wounded this young girl must be? Even with the passage of time. The child is a constant reminder of what she suffered. Even the joy of motherhood has been tainted for her. Is the child suffering as a consequence. What of the continuing stigma for mother, child and extended family?

If you truly want to make amends, you may need to confess, but how? What if the lady in question has found someone to love her despite what she has endured? Said suitor may be happy to commit and care for her as she is history, child and all. You appearance would potentially ruin that. Talk about a bad penny.

Care for the child? They may not need your money and or care for your presence. Which would be a constant reminder of their hurt.

You said they are a "Christian family" if I recall rightly. Perhaps approaching them on that basis and asking to talk may be a starting point. Then being led by the family' wishes from that point on. They may well adjudge it better you simply stay away. Hopefully they will not demand blood for the remission of your sin and if they do, may remember He Who shed His blood on the cross for us.

If you are perhaps dreaming on a "happy ending", I'd be realistic here. In some countries you'd be starting with a long stretch in jail and costs until the child comes of age. Which could of course spell the end of any productive life for you. But this is not about you is it?


No easy way.


TV

I read the link.

This made me shudder...

In 2006, I was happy to be involved in the Toronto LUTH HIV Surveillance in Nigeria among MSM (Men who have Sex with Men). The result was over 13% infection among MSM in Nigeria. Just 1000 men were sampled. It was disaster and shocking. 1 in 8 MSM was living with HIV in Nigeria as at 2006. None of them knew. They got tested because there was money involved. More than 75% of men either are married, have girlfriends or having sex with women....


TV

This is quite well known. And to my mind pretty much axiomatic.

All this study - actually it's composite study of 90 others - does is condense the empirical research. Hard to argue with really. And no, it doesn't apply to every unique case of marriage or discrete instance of singleness, but really there is no gainsaying in principle.

I both agree with and personally experience the health benefits of being married. Marriage viewed solely as an agreement, can appear to favour women more, this highlights why, whatever the general or individual balance, it's typically for a mans long-term good as well.

It's also worth noting that the marriage does not have to be deliriously happy for the benefits to accrue. Just as long as conflict is low-level and contained. Marriage still remains the best domestic arrangement for women - and perhaps even more importantly, any offspring.

Talking of suicide, the Christmas period can be a very lonely time - especially in the West - and there is typically a spike in suicide cases during this period. It's good to keep an eye open and perhaps reach out to any vulnerable people you know. Even the merest of gestures can go a long way in relieving unbearable feelings of loneliness or dark thoughts.

Empirically observed, fact based, encouraging - what's not to like? Good one.

Sagamite how far na? Check out the benefits of marital life and put head quick-sharp - with the right spouse of course !


TV

PocketEconomist: Brother, please educate an ignorant brother WHAT IS MILE HIGH TINGS?

Uxory at 38,000 feet (and some inches !)

YPP, I will answer you on this occasion for two reasons

1. I know you don’t like having your posts ignored !
2. I am assuming your post was well-intentioned, so giving you the benefit of any doubt

As I rule, I don’t frequent fast food joints, but like anyone would, if whilst passing I spot family, a friend or acquaintance, I may well stop to say hello.

That’s what happened in this instance. I spotted Ihedinobi, read what he had to say and thought I’d say a few words. You can see by the way I signed off it was all light-hearted on my part. Just the two posts intended.

Then, without any reference to my post, Osisi characterised me as a “woman basher”? So, where were all those now mewling and forming piety at that point?

Then Efemena XY, rolls up and likewise describes my post as “hate-filled”. Nobody squealed and tossed around words like maturity and decorum or spoke about derailing then?

Then when I turn around and reply accordingly, all of a sudden, people find loose change and proffer their kobo, kobo opinions? Believe me, such spluttering is wasted on me!

I’m not here for popularity, to be liked or attested too. If anyone wants to challenge my opinions, no problem, dispute my facts, I heartily welcome that. However, if you feel you can to wilfully attack me with absolutely no cause, I reserve the right to answer as I see fit, and may well turn around and savage you.

As for the hidden posts, why now? Not sure if there was something for me to personally respond to .

Wifey and I were on our way back from getting some winter sun, so I posted and fully intended to return sharpish. Then wifey said she needed to pop to the rear, came back and said “come and see”. Here’s me thinking “what is it?” and mumbling “I’m tired jor" And before I could say “medium rare please waiter” we were doing mile high tingz. Uxory makes you generous, but alas it doesn’t guarantee smarts. Thank God for an on-point spouse.

And for the wanna-weds, a stingy man will never be a generous lover. Bank that.

YPP, are you seeking cabal membership ?

I'm off. The fumes alone from burger joints can be quite noxious .


TeeVee


_{...and still they run to the mods to cover their behinds!}

Every marital union is in a sense unique. However, taking a generic perspective, it’s clear that there are two basic approaches to marriage, “what I can get” and “what can I give.

Do I take offence at those who marry to get as opposed to give? What’s my own? I merely champion the approach I believe aligns with the truth, Godliness and lends itself to uxory .

If people insist on supping on burger, who am I to coerce them to dining on chateaubriand?

But just as you are what you eat, your approach to marriage will substantiate your marital experience.

Let me give you an example; I am stingy, from the land of stingy people. But even in stingyville, my family is a byword for tightwaddedness. We are known as the short arms deep pockets family. I am personally so stingy that I refuse to put on an ounce of weight, so I don’t have to buy new clothes. So stingy, I’ll ask for a discount on a free item. So stingy....

...but when I entered into a trusting, caring and committed relationship, stinginess picked race. When I adopted wholesale a sacrificial posture in my union, tight-fistedness lost its grip.

In a truly selfless union, selfishness vanishes, self seeking finds no place. However, if you enter with a transactional attitude you’ll always quantify your union in a mostly material manner and seek to justify your spouse’ character flaws because there isn’t the unfettered love to subsume them.

Gorge yourselves on burger if you so choose, I’m merely recommending fine dining.

Wanna weds - if you would choose fine dining - please take note.


TV