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

Ihedinobi, how far? Hope all's well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TV

TV01:
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".

TV01:
"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.

TV01:
It also denies children the right to be raised by their biological parents, which is codified by the UN. Rights jam rights?

TV01:
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.

TV01:
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.

TV01:
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.

thehomer: Ihedinobi has run from his thread.

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?

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

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?

thehomer: What then is the essence of marriage?

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

thehomer: How are they nonsensical?

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

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.

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

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

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

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

thehomer:
This paragraph is devoid of meaning.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

TV01: Maybe you're inanity drove him away !



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TV01:
No one is stopping you from showing another

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

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

TV01:
Like sodomitic marriage then?

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

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

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

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

Cluck, cluck

TV

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

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

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

. . . .

TV01: @thehomer (or indeed anyone else),

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TV

Uyi Iredia: @ OP: Why Ihedinobi com deactivate im account now ? Well the response of Pierre Morgan portrays what many gays tend to do in a debate over their rights. When one uses their logic against them they play deaf or ignore it as Piers' jibe did.

TV01: @thehomer (or indeed anyone else),

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

According to this PAIR appears to be close friends and COUPLE boyfriends. This distinction on sexual/emotional grounds is not important in the discussion of marriage. The real distinction here should be dating vs making a long term commitment. But let me put that on hold for a minute.


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?

There is no obligation, benefit or requirement to endorse the pair or the couple (same as two women, or man and woman today who choose to live together as unmarried partners). They don't have any legal ties towards each other, by choice. Whether they are having sex or emotionally linked or not is irrelevant. They have no legal status, they might as well be friends/roommates and are treated as such. Either can walk away the next day in any manner with little consequence.

Should they decide to make a life long commitment eg to live together, merge their assets and plan a joint future, the benefit for their union to be recognized legally is that there will be a structure to provide security to both individuals as seen by the various rights they will get below.


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

Do your own research on marriage rights. Anyway examples, they can make important medical decisions on behalf of their partner, special visitation rights in prison/hospital, next-of-kin recognition, inheritance, family leave to take care of sick spouse, collect pension of deceased spouse, getting residency to be with your spouse, child support, in case of separation there is a structure to how assets are handled, societal recognition that you are a unit.


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

Choice. Those who want to cohabit can cohabit those who want to make a long term commitment and feel secure in that commitment can do so irrespective of having sex or not. This is no different form cohabiting straight couples and married straight couples.


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


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

Firstly it is not in any one's favor. Marriage comes with responsibilities and obligations to your spouse so its not about doing things in anyone’s favour. Society should recognize the formalized union because its a firm commitment by 2 people to merge into a family. They want to take the relationship from friendship/dating to formal legal unit and enjoy the rights, kinship ties as well as obligations and responsibilities cohabiting friends choose to not to partake in.


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

TV01: @thehomer,

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

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

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

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


TV

TV01: Diminishing marriage for the 98%+ to make it equal for the tiny minority is not equality.

google:

equality
ɪˈkwɒlɪti,iː-/
noun
noun: equality; plural noun: equalities

1. the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

TV01:

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

TV01:

1. What is the benefit to society that would lead to recognition of their union?

Joshthefirst: nice to have you back!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TV

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?

SMH

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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TV

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

b. humans have the right to marry,

c. therefore homosexuals can marry
. . . .

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.

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

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??

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.

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?

TV01:

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

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

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

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

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

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


TV

TV01: And you are a shameless reprobate. We can do this all day, or you can simply back up your asinine assertion.
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 .
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.
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

TV01:

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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".