₦airaland Forum

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

Ihedinobi: TV, BM is actually against testing. She was only talking about dating. I do get her view on the matter, how a lady is still free to move on to somebody else as long as the vows haven't been said. I draw the line at engagement though, that's where she and I may disagree, but she does not agree with or condone pre-marital sexx.

Sex is just one element. Truth is, ensuring a certain degree of viability in terms of maturity, character and viability is necessary.

As for BM' position on SBM, like I said, our posting histories are before us. Likewise for Efemena XY. Having said that, even if we take sex out of the equation, in the engagement scenario of my second post, how does that change anything?


TV

Ihedinobi: This means war!!!!

War ke?

One cannot successfully war against the truth, only for it.

Plus these two know their level.

Na today?

TV

Baby mama: Crush when you are single
Shoot!
You are allowed to have crushes when you are single
If it escalates to something else and is genuine, that means your heart belongs there ,you simply leave the other person ( in a nice way ) and migrate
My dear,until you walk that aisle,you are a single woman and can change your mind at anytime
This is the time to do it

I left a fiancé to marry my husband and I have no regrets whatsoever
Go with your heart

Please explain how a mature lady available for courtship and able to legitimately accept a proposal, is able to simply change her mind at any time?
And this not as a result of a serious failing on the part of her HTB, just on a personal whim?

Even for one who claims faith in God and has recourse to family and other support?

She can "engage" - and presumably test - agree to marry and then with no remorse or recriminations (just a few well-spun words) up until vows are taken ditch him like a used tissue. Where are the abuse police when you need them ?

And the catch-all proviso here is "going with your heart"...nice!

Pray tell, what is it you could see, explore and fully test in another potential spouse, having committed to one already? Even with a "multi-shine" deal , the logistics are still convoluted at best.

Hypergamy fits and trading is apt. In fact both words are somewhat mild

Why did you use the word "love" in your title? Trading is for profit.

TV

Ihedinobi: Yeah I am and a lot more terrified too.

I no de try am again o. When I see d person wey I go marry, I go carry am from dia go church straight.

No fear dude!
Just be sure to get it right. With the right person you'll know peace - before and during. After sef!

Get it wrong and you won't be a husband - you'll be a "prison girlfriend". Especially if you get it wrong in the West. I could tell you stories that would give you serious rectal discomfort. Let's leave that. Get you game and approach right and marry a wife.

I'm so rooting for you sir.

TV

Baby mama: My dear,until you walk that aisle,you are a single woman and can change your mind at anytime
This is the time to do it Go with your heart

Ihedinobi: Na women like you de teach us make we de fear to date una! Shuu!!

No need to fear. But it is essential that you understand - mainly two things;

1. It's the logical follow-on sequence from "testing". Which is essentially a self-seeking, tick-box exercise

2. Many women are hypergamous - essentially traders, upward traders. Some on a limited basis and some in an open-ended sense.

The ones with a limit will typically trade to maximum utility before marriage. Then societal, family pressure etc. prevails and they sit tight. Can often turn toxic if they don't get their wants (or way), which is usually, as they are never really satisfied. For the open-ended ones, marriage is simply a trick and they'll move on without batting an eyelid when the right opportunity arises. At the extreme end here, you have your black-widows.

Hope you're a bit clearer now - even if no less fearful .

Happy hunting dude!

Teefee

charlsecy: He now doubts the girl's intergrity. Maybe she is not proud of her town.

He is right too.
Or perhaps not proud of something she or her family has done in their town?

bellong: Ask her why she lied first.

So she can lie again ?

OP, do your due dilligence very well - aka shine eye.

Shildren don enter sha, so if it's a minor thing - lots of girls lie/delude themselves as a matter of course, just like lots of men are braggarts - forgive (but admonish) her.

If it's a major thing - i.e. she don born pikin already - you can still forgive, but be sure you can live with it and her. Unless of course the thing means you simply cannot be together.

Congrats on the birth of your twins. Hope you are capable and ready to be the best dad you can be.


Teefee

bluuu: @TV,wat is HTB and SBM pls

HTB = hubby to be
SBM = sex before marriage

Nairalandspeak

@ OP, you appear to have a great union and this is merely a challenge to be overcome. You are in the best setting and with the right person to do just that.

One day you will look back on this trying time and laugh and in future you may well be able to share your experience to help others. I have nothing to add to the "good" advice that has been advanced by some contributors here. But please permit me to wish you a long, joyous and fruitful union.

May the grace of The Lord abound abundantly towards you.


Now to this;

aaronson: I know it sounds immoral but sex with your spouse to be is definately needed just so you know your partner's sexuality appetite and other problem because marriage is a life time investment with child bearing as profit to the blissful matrimony,some people are just so religious to know the technical truth even Jesus had to tell Abraham to lie to a king that sarah was his sister and The Same God still told Samuel to tell saul that he was just passing by to go to the mountain for prayers when truthfully he was going to the house of jesse to anoint david as king,so would you say God has made these people lied or that's simply WISDOM

Firstly, it doesn't sound immoral, it is immoral. It's also ungodly and your warped theology is at best pityfull, not too mention blasphemous.

Secondly, I always ask testers these two questions;

1. How does one acquire the expertise to test?
2. What does one test for exactly? If it is simply "compatibility" - as opposed to very specific detail - and if so, to what degree?

Thirdly - and I hope OP willl not take offence - lets look at the "type" of case in question;

If HTB had insisted on testing, then encounteed the challenge, with no commitment, why would he not simply be minded to move on? If he stays, then the situation remains unchanged - a challenge to work through. Thereby making SBM a moot point

Instead, he got to know her as a person, her character, desires, aspirations etc., and came to care and commit to that person. Giving them the perfect foundation to face the challenge - Marriage!

Say he had "moved on" after SBM, thus learning to walk away from challenges, as opposed to rising to meet them and quantify outcomes based on his own satisfaction - the exact wrong mindset for one seeking to be married.

He would also be liable to place an over-emphasis on "sexual compatibility" in his eventual choice, overlooking more vital considerations, which could present serious challenges. But as he is used to not rising and inclined to satisfying himself, failure is more likely. More likely even if there are no other issues, but "sexual compatibility" changes for the worse at some future point.

And the lady in such a situation? Repeat cycles of testing and rejection. What feelings would follow that? What attitude? Man-hater? edgy and wary at the very least? There's a whole school of them with us here on NL.

OP, apologies for belabouring the point and referencing your challenge, but I am so applauding you and hubby right now. Believe, you will triumph over this by His grace.

Let the purveyors of wantoness and preachers of permissiveness continue. Be that to cover up their own promiscuous pasts or justify their self-seeking choices. Those who will hear will hear.


TV

Seun: There was a time when living as a black American was very inconvenient because most places of business would refuse to serve black people. Can you imagine going to a restaurant with your white friends only to be told that they "don't serve your type here?" Or a petrol station? Or to not be allowed to attend a good school even though your academics are strong? That's what America was like before the laws that convicted this man were created. It does a lot of damage to members of minority groups if people are allowed to refuse to do business with "their type".

A nice enough sound bite, but entirely wrong - scientifically and factually. Sodomy is a practice, not a genetically predetermined or immutable characteristic. Ethnicity and race are. Sodomites are not physically or functionally any different from "normal" people. they self- identify and indulge in sodomy as a choice.

Secondly, he did not refuse them service because they are "gay", he refused to bake a cake celebrating the lie that is same-sex marriage, as untrue, immoral, degrading and against his religious beliefs. He would have to violate his own conscience to satisfy their falsely contrived inalienable right.

A pornographer asks to buy bread, no problem. A pornographer asks to purchase pastry no problem. A pornographer asks you to bake a cake detailing a lewd act. If it violates your faith, simply refuse. That's what happened here. Who would force a halal butcher to stock pork?

Thirdly please don't compare sodomitic activism to black civil rights. They are nothing alike and an insult to those that fought for them and those that continue to be denied them.

TV

carr101: Stop hating, my LGBT rights doesn't take away your heterosexual rights! It only means we all get to enjoy our inalienable HUMAN rights. Surely this is not too difficult to comprehend??

"Inalienable human rights?"

A mans right to rectally penetrate another male - an inalienable human right?
Their right to have legal and societal endorsement of such a "relationship" as marriage - an inalienable human right?
The right to have the law force everyone to endorse the act as moral and the relationship as valid - an inalienable human right?

The act is dehumanising, degrading and dysfunctional.
The relationship is disordered, amoral, and a lie, whatever you codify legally. Marriage is and will always remain a male & female union
Moral, natural - and if you believe, divine - law all attest to this. And if one believes otherwise, one is alienated.

TV