who gets to define marriage. heterosexuals?

Tayo-D:

@bawomolo,
And who should define it, the Judge? Even if we accept that society is free to make changes as social evolution often dictates, is it up to a single Judge to make that call? The society, very well and better represented by the electorate made the call, and the minority represented by an interest group and an activist Judge feel like they know better.

We've heard about the tyranny of the majority. What do we make of this tyranny of the minority?!

thehomer:

@Sagamite,  Condom

The concept of consent is not simply that of intercourse, it also involves some responsibility for the other partner. In a marriage, both parties bear some responsibility for each other. e.g in a situation where a decision needs to be made, the decision of the marriage partner generally supersedes that of even biological relatives. I really do not think an animal can give consent under such a condition.

thehomer:

The main thrust of this issue is that it is unconstitutional because it denies some citizens rights that are given to others. So in such a case, unless the constitution is amended, the judge does have a lot to say on the issue.
The interesting thing about this case is that it in no way limits the rights of other people to get married.

Sagamite:

Under what laws does it make it mandatory that one partner should be able to take responsibility for the other partner in a marriage?

Sagamite:

Or are you just creating your own laws that suit your argument?

Sagamite:

So you mean if a man and someone with mental disability want to marry, there is a law that bans them?

Sagamite:

It is not unconstitutional.

It enforces a societal moral code just like when you ban incest, bigamy, bestiality or even set a minimum age range for marriage. Those are citizens too.

Sagamite:

In this case, the societal moral code is based on setting marriage between those that have a potential to reproduce naturally. It does not stop the gays from being together, they have their freedom, which I disagree with by the way. They just can not marry each other.

Sagamite:

They have the same rights to marry. It just has to be with someone of the opposite gender.

thehomer:

I'm not sure about what you mean by mandatory here but there are rights and responsibilities attached with it.

No I'm not. Wikipedia has a good entry on it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_law

thehomer:

There's no law that bans them but, I think the mentally challenged would either be able to live independently or require the approval of a guardian.

thehomer:

Well as we can see, the societal moral code has changed and was reflected in the constitution. The other situations you mentioned are quite different and not allowed for other reasons.

thehomer:

Yet old people are able to marry? How about people who are infertile due to genetic or other reasons? And with the advances in science, the lines of "a potential to reproduce naturally" is being blurred so I'm not sure of how you would wish to use this as a criterion.
So that law as it stood was unconstitutional denying them some rights just because of their sexual orientation.

thehomer:

I think it would be wrong both to the homosexual and the partner of the opposite gender if they had to be forced to marry. Like I said, marriage is not just about the intercourse.

Sagamite:

There is a difference between "rights" and "Responsibilities/obligations".

Rights is normally a benefit. You do not need an animals consent to allocate Rights.

Sagamite:

There are different degrees of mental challenges. Not all need approval to act according to their wish.

Sagamite:

Someone with Downs Syndrome would not require a guardian's approval to get married. Not even someone with bipolar disorder.

Sagamite:

Changed where? I can't see.

Sagamite:

To me it appears majority object to same-sex marriage.

Sagamite:

It is just an attempt to utilise a loophole or misinteprete the constitution.

Sagamite:

Societal moral code still overwhelmingly say "No" to homosexuality in general, talkless of marriage, it is just a band of self-annointed "progressives" that are employing media tyranny to force acceptance on people and stifle opposing view through preventing access, misrepresentation or public contumely in media.

Sagamite:

The law is based on marriage being a unification between people of opposite gender, hence I used the terms "potential" and "naturally".

Sagamite:

Man-made attempts to blur natural lines is not grounds to change laws or something to support. So I find it shocking it is an argument for our "progress" and formulate laws to accommodate about people's rights.

Sagamite:

No one is forcing them. If they cannot follow the rules, they should not play just like incestors, bestials, polygamists, necrophilics etc.

thehomer:

Yes but does the animal have even the possibility of carrying out the responsibilities?

thehomer:

Yes but even this depends on the degree of disability.

thehomer:

Then I suggest you look closely. Recall that there were times when it was not considered immoral to own other people.

thehomer:

I'm not saying this is correct but, even if a majority do object, until the constitution is able to be changed, it still should apply. e.g consider the view towards gun ownership.

thehomer:

This is not true considering the numerous benefits married people actually get from being married.

thehomer:

This is also not true considering the view towards it in Western Europe and in various parts of the U.S. Again, there's no need to keep repeating the "forcing of acceptance on people" mantra because, homosexuals getting married does not affect another person's personal or public life in any way. Also, the fact that these articles and other interviews are available, I still don't understand why people keep saying they are being silenced.

thehomer:

And the question that follows is, why should this be so? Considering that it is possible for two people of the opposite gender not to have the potential of "naturally reproducing" who are allowed to marry.

thehomer:

The law simply grants them rights that they should already have. It does not limit the rights of heterosexuals in any way.

And why should they not play? They are after all also fully sentient. And they also wish to gain benefits they've been denied.

Sagamite:

I repeat: There are no mandatory legal responsibilities in marriage.

Sagamite:

There are no responsibilities you can use as an excuse to exclude bestial marriage.

Sagamite:

Exactly my point!

So there is no grounds to prevent marriage because (as you claimed) "it also involves some responsibility for the other partner". No law specifies responsibilities that a partner has to be capable of undertaking for their spouse before being able to marry.

Sagamite:

Please don't bring that cheap-credibility crap of leeching to Civil rights in. I am not a lay man.

Civil rights is completely and UTTERLY different from gay rights. See comprehensive explanation here:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=134573.msg2269375#msg2269375

Sagamite:

I don't know what the US constitution says, but my understanding is that their marriage law completely stipulates that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Sagamite:

Secondly, the excuse the judge used to overturn the law was lame ("we can not make laws based on moral values", so I suspect the constitution did not back him. US like every other country DOES and is ALLOWED to make laws based on moral values.

[list]
[li] "Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents' assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence." [/li]


[li] "Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation." [/li]


[li] "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex." [/li]


[li] "Marrying a person of the opposite gender is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals." [/li]


[li] "Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive." [/li]


[li] "The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships." [/li]


[li] "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."[/li]
[/list]

Sagamite:

I don't understand, how does this answer the question of misintepreting the law I asked?

The law states that EVERYONE is allowed to get married TO ONE PERSON, it just restricts it to opposite gender and if you do not like this, no one forces you to participate.

Sagamite:

The same law bans polygamy, does that not mean discrimination?

Sagamite:

The view towards it in the West is a Capital NO!!!! by the majority. Most people are just scared of saying it publicly because of contumely that they are likely to face.

EVERY WESTERN GOVERNMENT (bar maybe the Scandinavians) knows that if they put it to universal suffrage today, homosexuality WILL be banned, not only the marriage.

Sagamite:

It is merely tyranny of the minority of self-appointed "progressives", insidiously force their will on others and stifling opposing view through personality attacks and terrorism. Example is here:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-454615.384.html#msg6183086

As Heston said, it is a cultural war that the anti-gays have been sucker punched repeatedly so far by giving an inch in the first place.

If the US Army had asked soldiers to vote if they wanted open gays in the military, the answer would have been an emphatic NOOOOOOOO! But the minority in power tyrants forced it through as usual using the complexity of the constitution that the lay man will not understand or be able to debate.

Sagamite:

Also, I don't see how polygamy affects anyone not involved's personal or public life but yet it is banned, is it not?

Sagamite:

I don't see how walking na.k.ed on the street affects anyone's personal or public life but yet it is banned, is not?

Why? It disgusts people. Societal MORAL CODE!

Sagamite:

Because that is how nature intended. And otherwise is utterly unnatural and disgusting.

Sagamite:

No, they should not already have the right.

They should not play because societal moral code objects, just like sentient bestials.

thehomer:

Again I wonder what you mean by "mandatory" here because it is possible for one to shirk their responsibilities but that person will have to pay a price.

Well I beg to differ. e.g how would an animal take over affairs of a deceased "partner"?

thehomer:

How do you devise a standard of morality?
Besides, my point was that what is considered moral has changed and varies from culture to culture.

Well it varies from state to state.

thehomer:

That is not true.
These are some of the reasons given by the judge from the article:

thehomer:

My point is that it is not a loophole because married people actually do get some benefits that homosexuals who are together do not. This is one of the things that makes it a Civil Rights issue.

thehomer:

Polygamy is a different ball-game.

thehomer:

Nope I really do not think so. You may wish to review this 2007 poll here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Pew2007

thehomer:

Oh? What inch did the anti-gays give?

thehomer:

Besides, what you said on that post really depends on the reporter or the listener. Some people care about it, some do not. Your claim about the harassment for their views is really not new. Reporters do that all the time.

thehomer:

Well in the case of polygamy, some of the rights and responsibilities would be difficult if not impossible to carry out.

thehomer:

Public nudity depends on the context.

thehomer:

Nature intended? Are you implying that marriage is "natural"? Or that marriage between people who cannot procreate is "unnatural" and disgusting?

thehomer:

But you see, according to the U.S constitution, they should have the right.
Who determines societal moral code?

Sagamite:

Can you explain to me what laws of marriages MANDATES that you must be ABLE to take over affairs of your partner BEFORE you can be allowed to marry?

Sagamite:

If you cannot, then EXPLAIN why you use such an argument as basis to disqualify bestial marriage.

Sagamite:

Morality is shaped by the society/community mainly based on (1) harm and (2) disgust.

Sagamite:

It is still generally not accepted that homosexuality is moral IN THE WEST. People have just been BULLIED/BRAINWASHED to live and let live. Most people still ABHOR it.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-451956.160.html#msg6118756

Sagamite:

For the majority of the article you quote, it could easily apply to someone who claims a bestial sexual orientation. Maybe the third to a lesser extent.

Sagamite:

The reality is that the judge is working on a poor premise right from the start. Homosexuality should not be treated as anything but deviancy in the first place. All this nonsensical euphemism of "sexual orientation does not wash".

Sagamite:

If they can not marry opposite gender, then tough.

Sagamite:

Why is it?
Please explain.
Does your judge's pronouncement not apply to it too? Read the article quote, is that quote not valid for polygamy too?

Sagamite:

I would be very much interested in the method used for the research before I validate it.

Sagamite:

As I told you earlier, people in the WEST are scared of contumely. Because of terrorisms like this:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-454615.224.html#msg6143326
So if you go on the street and ask people the question of the survey, it is likely to be skewed as people will give you the answer they think or have been told is acceptable.

Sagamite:

I will not be surprised if the self-annointed liberals are not the ones that commissioned this report and did not apply discreteness and anonymity to collate the RIGHT results but still decided to use it to mislead.

Sagamite:

As I said earlier:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-451956.160.html#msg6118756

Sagamite:

An inch of allowing their society to be fooled that all homosexuals want is just the freedom to be able to relate and have a partner in peace.
To decriminalise homosexuality, live and let live bollocks:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=134573.msg2269021#msg2269021

Sagamite:

For example, Tony Blair treated the UK public like morons when he said he set up a marriage for gays where they get everything but he refused to call it marriage and called it civil partnership to decieve the average man on the street that might be against it. Trust the media, they did not drill the government to explain what is different from marriage and civil partnership and why they did not simply call it MARRIAGE since if quacks like a duck.
Tyranny of the minority in action.

Sagamite:

I can guarantee you WITHOUT a shred of a doubt that in the UK, the reporters are not like that against people that are pro-gay.
It is a cultural war. They are attacking those opposing homosexuality and trying to stifle them and stealthy force the nurturing of our kids to accept it.

Sagamite:

Abeg your pardon?
You come again with rights and responsibilities that ARE NOT MANDATORY to excuse why some group are discriminated against?
Please explain to me, what "rights" and "responsibilities" are ENOUGH GROUNDS and ARE ESSENTIAL to justify the banning of polygamy

Sagamite:

Stroll down the road without clothes! Simple as A, B, C. No decoration, no garnishing.
Why ban it?

Sagamite:

Homosexuality is an unnatural desire. It is a mental issue.
Good luck to US consti.

Sagamite:

Determination answer above.

spikedcylinder:

I wonder what your thoughts are on asexuality.

thehomer:

The very fact that it is between humans implies this. This is why I wonder what you mean by "mandates" here. e.g is it mandatory not to steal from ones employers?

thehomer:

I've already answered this. Animals are not considered sentient and I don't think they are likely to be considered sentient any time soon.

thehomer:

Is there a means of designing a standard for disgust? e.g some find atheism disgusting. Do you think atheists should be banned?

thehomer:

I really don't think cross-referencing your own post on this forum is good evidence.
Besides, you have not presented any research poll pointing this out.

thehomer:

The judge was responding to a particular case.

thehomer:

And what was the poor premise?

thehomer:

It seems you do not understand why it is a civil rights issue.

thehomer:

If you are interested, there is a full pdf file that you can download and view.

Again cross-referencing your own post.

I'm sorry, but you should first review the research methodology before jumping to conclusions. And you may also wish to look into the organization that usually carries out the polls to consider their credibility.

thehomer:

Again, not good evidence.

thehomer:

So I guess tyranny by the majority is a better option?

thehomer:

That tends to happen in a democratic setting. That is why there are pressure groups, coalitions etc. About the interested reporters, maybe it is because many also view homosexuality as a human rights issue. Remember that there are reporters and columnists who are also against homosexuals. You can find them if you want.

thehomer:

Again, what do you mean by "mandatory" here because I've already addressed this.

thehomer:

I already answered this. It's allowed in some settings but not in others. I really don't see how it applies here.

thehomer:

Well, the mental health experts have pointed out that it is not a mental health issue. And I agree with them considering the reasons they've given.

thehomer:

So do you actually think that it would be a good decision to go along with the majority most of the time? Even when they do not agree with your views? You may also recall that in the past, people viewed inter-racial marriages even eating in a restaurant with a black person as disgusting and not harming themselves.

Sagamite:

They should be shot for not giving it up.

You are absolutely right, as always.
I mean, a lot of people consider homosexuality a mental disorder just the same as asexuailty. Bravo bros. We need to gun down those queers. Abi?

spikedcylinder:

You are absolutely right, as always.
I mean, a lot of people consider homosexuality a mental disorder just the same as asexuailty. Bravo bros. We need to gun down those queers. Abi?

Sagamite:

Implies?
Impliiiiiiiiies?
Lets go back again. You said bestial marriage cannot take place because marriage is not only about intercourse, but it involves roles and responsibilities. I asked you to prove how that roles and responsibilities is prerequisite for ALLOWING people to marry, because I thought that was a JARGON argument. Under what laws is it MANDATORY that you must be able to deliver those roles and responsibilities for a partner before you are allowed to marry.
And you come to me with "implies"?

Sagamite:

YES, it is mandatory not to steal from your employers. If you do you will go to jail. You did not know that?

Sagamite:

Please, try one more time, explain to me how you can prevent bestial marriage based on roles and responsibilities.
Amsorry!
Come again.
Animals are not considered to have sensation and consciousness? In which bleeping country.
Explain please.

Sagamite:

Under societal moral code, if you can gather enough people to be oppose pap drinking, then you can ban it. Same goes for atheist.

Sagamite:

Yes, it is my observation. It is normally pretty good. Obviously those with the ability to conduct such research will not, because of the gay terrorisms.
For example, a few years when scientists wanted to research if homosexuality is a genetic trait, guess the people that harassed and got the plug pulled. THE GAY AND LESBIAN COALITION!!!!!! Now their LAME excuse was because, if its proven to be genetic, parents would simply opt for their kids through genetic engineering to have the gay gene removed.

Sagamite:

We are in a position in the WEST of being forced to accept homosexuality without any convincing arguments.

Sagamite:

The gays will not allow any such research since the outcome WOULD be unfavourable.

Sagamite:

In law, most particular cases normally stand as a template for reference for other cases. If you apply it, then you should be able to apply it for other cases of the same genre. Be it bestial marriage or polygamy. It is called consistency in justice.
So please explain how the quoted don't apply.

Sagamite:

Homosexuality is natural and acceptable.

Sagamite:

I fully understand.
(1) Homosexuality is not a civil right. (2) Everyone is allowed to marry, everyone faces the same restrictions.

Sagamite:

Yeah, I have checked and guess what?
I am right as usual. The poll was conducted face-2-face or by telephone. So no anonymity or discreteness.

Sagamite:

Also look at the survey:
Look at Isreal, South Korea, India, China and Russia for example, a vast MAJORITY objects to homosexuality, yet it has been legalised in those countries. Tyranny of the minority forcing their view on the majority. Then over time, since it is now legal, they will assualt and surpress more people until you see figures like that in the Western countries.

Sagamite:

Guess what? Even the US have the guts to legalise homosexuality in Iraq. They have removed it from the statute books, irrespective of overwhelming opposition by the natives.
As I said: Tyranny of the minority.
Believe me. I am usually right on this stuff, so with the wilful attempts or no allowance to conduct a survey, I will trust my prescience and clairvoyance.

Sagamite:

Amsorry.
Are you disputing the argument that is clearly common sense?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=134573.msg2269021#msg2269021

Sagamite:

Why do you think everytime a law is to be changed to favour gays it is done piecemeal? Why do you think gay marriage is only coming years later? Why do you think gay adoption is only coming years later? You think if they had tried all that shyt at once people will stand for it?
Please don't be dismissing or disrespecting logic again.

Sagamite:

Is democracy a tyranny?
In a democracy. majority wins and the wish of majority should take presidence otherwise it is tyranny.

Sagamite:

In the UK, no reporter is allowed to express any anti-gay sentiments. THEY CAN BE FIRED FROM THEIR JOBS FOR SUCH "OUTRAGEOUS" STANCE.
It is expected they self-sensor. Pro-gays are free to rant.
If you are a movie maker or TV producer, you are only allowed to show gays in a positive light, which further helps with brainwashing youths. I am yet to see a soap, film in the UK where a gay character is negative and where any anti-gay character is not written to be obnoxious.
Any movie maker or TV producer that breaks that rule will be hounded and lose. Gays must always be good likeable people.
Gay terrorism!

Sagamite:

No, you have not.
You said polygamy is not allowed because roles and responsibilities in marriage cannot be performed optimally.
So please explain to me, what "rights" and "responsibilities" are ENOUGH GROUNDS and ARE ESSENTIAL to justify the banning of polygamy.

Sagamite:

Why is it not universally allowed?
According to your argument to allow gay marriage, you said it does not publically or privately affect anyone's life, so I gave you an example of something that does not publically or privately affect anyone's life but yet is banned.
So if you understand the importance of consistency in applications of law, why is it not universally allowed?

Sagamite:

The same expert that said paedophilia is a mental disease (not a sexual orientation) and are applying treatments and therapies to "cure" it, but then turn around to say homosexuality is natural?
Puhlease!
Unbelievable fraud.
If homosexuality is natural, we will see it in EXACTLY the same for in some species of animals. And w don't.
Homosexuality is a mental issue just like paedophilia which we need to cure, not accept.

Sagamite:

Again, you look for cheap credibility. Please stop leeching to civil rights.
Homosexuality and racism are completely 2 different things.

Sagamite:

You should only not go with majority if something is natural.
Race is natural. You see forms of race in animal world in EXACTLY the same form. Homosexuality is not.

thehomer:

Yes. There are some situations that when they occur, implies that a previous condition had been met.

thehomer:

So in a similar way, there are mandatory responsibilities in a marriage that if are not done, the guilty party may go to jail or fofeit the marriage or in some cultures, their life.

thehomer:

I guess I should have used the term sapience here and not sentience.
So an animal cannot e.g take over the affairs of a human. Like maybe raising a human child.

thehomer:

And do you actually think this will be a good approach? By this reasoning, can we conclude that if the majority of people support segregation, it should be carried out.

thehomer:

So I guess we should all just take your observations as Aristotle's observations were just taken? You don't think what you say needs to be verified just because you're the one who said it?
This can easily be resolved if you actually could present some evidence for this rather than hearsay.

thehomer:

I think the arguments already presented were quite convincing. Looking at the biological, social, cultural, historical etc.

thehomer:

Allow? If you feel you can do a better job, you're perfectly free to try.

thehomer:

It doesn't apply because homosexuality is quite different from polygamy and bestiality.

thehomer:

But the first premise is supported on multiple levels. About the second, whether or not something is acceptable to a person is not quite relevant when it comes to civil rights.

thehomer:

Why is it not a civil right? We're talking about a relationship between two people in which both parties benefit which has been granted to other members of the same society.

thehomer:

And how do you think they could have improved the poll?
I hope you realize that in these times of the internet, it is very difficult to remain anonymous in a connected society.
Also, remember that we were talking about western societies which are known to be quite free.

thehomer:

Your accusations are starting to come across as conspiracies when there are better explanations that have been noted e.g the younger generations are simply more liberal than the older generations especially on social issues.

thehomer:

I don't think it is common sense to deny people their rights based on their sexual orientation.

thehomer:

Lots of laws came about gradually.

thehomer:

There are issues that may be decided democratically and there are issues that may not be decided democratically.

thehomer:

Whether or not one is fired depends on where they work. Well I guess you simply need to look harder. Besides, movies and soap operas are not real life.

thehomer:

A few of them come to mind. One of them is that when people speak of polygamy, they usually just mean polygyny which I think is not favourable to women. Then there are other issues like how to rank the legal guardians in such a family, next of kin status etc.

thehomer:

And I've pointed out that it is allowed in some settings.

thehomer:

I think you would be better off finding out the reasons why it is so.
Animal behaviour is not a good indicator of how humans should behave but, contrary to your assertion, homosexuality has been documented in lots of species.

thehomer:

No they are not that different. They both involve denying humans, rights other humans have, based on their physical identity

thehomer:

How do you determine what is natural? Is it until an animal performs it that you decide it is natural? Animals of the same species often kill cubs of competitors (this has been noted among lions) do you think that is natural? Should humans do the same?

Sagamite:

It seems you are struggling with explaining this so I am just going to tell you straight up.
If it is discrimination to ban same sex marriage and the law should be overturned, then it is also discrimination to ban BESTIAL marriage.
THERE IS NO LAWS that require capabilility of executing any roles or responsibilities as a prerequisite to marriage. There is no law requiring banning of marriages where capabilility of executing any roles or responsibilities lacks.

Sagamite:

Your attempt to use that as an excuse for allowing gay marriage but then "discriminate" against bestials was lame.
Bestial marriage, like gay marriage, is disallowed based purely on disgust and morality.

Sagamite:

You should have given an example instead of throwing some lame assertion in the air.
Please give example's of such responsibilities that the US  will jail a spouse for, if not done. I know you are going to struggle to name but let me give you a chance to at least.

Sagamite:

Fair enough. You made an error in the language you used. I will not duel on that even though you got my BP up thinking what crap is this.
Anyway, can you inform me since when sapience is judged before allowing people to marry. Where in the law is sapience a prerequisite by law.

Sagamite:

I repeat, stop leeching on civil rights.

Sagamite:

It takes wisdom to realise I am on par with Aristole.
As I said, if the elements with the power is not going to allow open research, I am VERY HAPPY to use my prescience and clairvoyance.
For example, even though I don't have evidence that the leaders of Iran or North Korea did not win their elections (i.e. if NK even conducts one),  does not mean I cannot use my judgement to know they rigged it.

Sagamite:

I study my society and I know majority of people do not like homosexuals, they make detrimental remarks about homosexuals in casual convos, simples.

Sagamite:

I know the western government will not allow or fund any research that is anit-gay. And they will suppress without logic any differing opinion with a more powerful access to a powerful media. They are trying that shyt on Africa now.

Sagamite:

What arguments? Let me know. I want to know the one you believe and stand for so I am not using strawman's on you.

Sagamite:

I don't get you. Am I with the powers to block or allow research?

Sagamite:

You are fcking wasting my time now.
How is homosexuality different from polygamy that to ban it, it is discriminication, but banning polygamy is not?
You did not feel you need to explain the difference?
Stop fcking wasting my time.

Sagamite:

Homosexuality is not a civil right. If it is, then so is paedophilia. Even if you should not allow/condone abuse of children, you should not condemn paedphiles for their "sexual orientation".

Sagamite:

Civil right should be based on premise that you are natural. Homosexuality is not natural, it is a disgusting mental issue.

Sagamite:

In countries where you risk contumely (e.g. West) or vengeance/attacks for your views (e.g. Arab/muslim world) on such an issue, then for me to find such research valid, then it must be conducted with anonymity (most likely the question would be isolated) and preferably remotely (by post, even by internet, which provides a pseudo-discreteness). But it seems this research was conducted as a group of questions with contact with respondents, which my prescience and clairvoyance suspected even before I checked.

Sagamite:

Amsorry?
Is it the younger generation that create rules in Isreal, South Korea, India, China and Russia?
Is the younger generation making up only about 30% of the population? Did you see the figures of the objection to homosexualities (which obviously includes majority of the younger generation) in the listed countries and yet some few still legalised it?
It is the same path taken by Western countries as platform to then brainwash and force majority to accept homosexuality.
People with deviancy have no rights. Homosexuality is sick, just like paedophilia. You don't give rights, you treat them.

Sagamite:

Please answer my questions:
Why do you think everytime a law is to be changed to favour gays it is done piecemeal? Why do you think gay marriage is only coming years later? Why do you think gay adoption is only coming years later? You think if they had tried all that shyt at once people will stand for it?

Sagamite:

So who decides when it is not democratic? Who should decide what is right against the wish of the majority in a democracy?
So you know if there is suffrage on homosexual issues, people will object to gays like Proposition 8?

Sagamite:

My point stands that it is a cultural war. There is a situation that has been created in the West that you will lose if you do not follow the pro-gay mantra if you are in a position to influence people's views.
So without creating superior or logical arguments, pro-gays are having a free playing field to brainwash the public and suppress opposing views because there is no logic to validate homosexuality. Homos are sick period.
And for your info, to the layman, which is majority, soaps are a reflection of real life and behaviours and views are formed based on what they see through such medium. BRAINWASHING.
Furthermore, when homosexuality was introduced to these programmes or when they programme is showing something the public find offensive like gay sex/kissing, the producers always use the line "we are only reflecting real life". But in their "real life", homosexuals are always good and good people always accept and like homosexuals, bad people don't. That is what these programmes portray so please don't tell me it is not brainwashing and intentional misinformation.
Can you spot my prescience and clairvoyance at work?

Sagamite:

What issues?
Are you insulting my intellect?
What issues? How come Arab countries have no such issues? What issues are strong enough to ban such marriage? What is difficult about ranking and next of kin?
Are women going to be forced into the marriage? What happened to 2 consenting adults platitude?
Please try and explain again. Don't let the reasons come to mind. Get the mind to look for them.

Sagamite:

I repeat, why is it not allowed in ALL settings? Is it not a civil right if it does not affect anyone? Or so you think it is OK to allow civil rights in some settings and not in others?

Sagamite:

Animal behaviour is a VEEEEEEEEEEEERY good indicator to observe what we do that is natural. A VEEEEEEERY good indicator.

Sagamite:

Please show me documented homosexuality in species that are strong enough, not the lame claims.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=279591.msg3990475#msg3990475

Sagamite:

They are UTTERLY different. One is natural, one is unnatural.
Compare race with sex, age, ethnic group etc. All natural.
Compare homosexuality with paedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality etc. All mental disorders that need treatment.

Sagamite:

You can compare within the groups, you cannot compare across the bridge. Otherwise everyone within each group will be entitled to the same comparison, with necrophilics comparing their case to "civil rights" movement.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-279591.1024.html#msg4859553

thehomer:

I've already answered this. Here's another point. When two people are married in the U.S, one of the obligations is alimony after a divorce. So, if two people were married, it is implied that both of them have the capability of supporting the other in a divorce. Such a concept means that if two people are married, then that capability was met before hand. This automatically disqualifies animals because they cannot have this capability.

thehomer:

Here you go again with your "disgust and morality". You're yet to present your method of deciding morality that is actually coherent. And a coherent definition of disgust as you use it here.

thehomer:

Oh? You're requesting examples? You should simply take my word for it. Since you're requesting some sort of evidence I think it's only fair for you to also back up your assertions with examples and evidence.
In this case, jail is not the only form of punishment available. People can be fined too. Again, an example would be defaulting on alimony payments can lead to fines.

thehomer:

Again, I said it was implied by law.

thehomer:

Even if you were Aristotle, Galileo, Newton and Einstein all rolled into one, if you're going to be making claims like you've been doing here, you need to present your evidence if you want a serious discussion.

thehomer:

That is a poor research methodology which to me here is not even as good as anecdotal evidence because your sample size is too small and not randomized.

thehomer:

Then go to private groups for funding.

thehomer:

It's quite different on several levels. Polygamy is marriage between more than two parties. Since it is a marriage, there are some legal responsibilities. If polygamists can sort that out with their governments, that's fine by me.
Homosexuality is about the sexual orientation of the parties involved.

thehomer:

This is a strawman because homosexuality is between two consenting adults. Besides, paedophilia is harmful to children who by the way, cannot give consent.

thehomer:

So what do you mean by natural? Are intersex "natural" according to you?

thehomer:

And you think telephone polls in industrialized countries is not good enough? You're suggesting internet and mail? Have you not heard about poll crashing and how little people bother with their mail these days?

thehomer:

The point I was making there is that the increased acceptance by the public can be traced to the younger generation.
How would you go about treating a homosexual?

thehomer:

This to me is irrelevant because again, lots of laws come about gradually.

Like I said, some issues simply are not open to be decided democratically.

thehomer:

No I cannot spot your prescience and clairvoyance at work. So do you want to start banning television shows that do not fit your previous opinions. Please remember that the viewer always has the ability to turn it off or change the channel.

thehomer:

And how would you rate the rights of women in the Arab countries? Who says they do not have these issues? I guess you really have not considered how complicated it can be.
The two consenting adults is simply that. Two.

thehomer:

Public nudity in our current society is not a civil right.

thehomer:

I'm sorry to see that you think animal behaviour should determine what humans should do.
So since some animals mark their boundaries with urine, do you think that this is what we should do too as a "natural" means of marking boundaries?

thehomer:

Here you go
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/love-that-dare-not-squeak-its-name.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm
http://www.timelessspirit.com/SEPT04/cristina.shtml

I hope you'll be able to reciprocate with some evidence when requested. Of course, you may wish to use wikipedia as a starting point for your research.
Also, does this mean that what animals do not do is unnatural? And any behaviour not on that list should also be considered unnatural?

thehomer:

When people classify objects, they usually give reasons. I think you should give reasons for your classifications.

thehomer:

The link does not answer the question. What do you mean by "within groups"? Homosexuality is between adult humans who are alive. Why do you classify them with necrophilia and bestialty? Please give your reasons.

Sagamite:

Automatically disqualifies them?
Where in the statute books did you see that? Are you creating your own laws here?
Go and understand the meaning of prerequisite before further commenting on this. You are really struggling to understand it.

Sagamite:

I have EXPLAINED IT TO YOU.
Those are things determined by the society. That is the method (societal disapproval based on offense) used and applied EVERYWHERE in the world. That is why bestiality is unlawful in the US.

Sagamite:

Do you have examples or not?

Sagamite:

Implied how?

Sagamite:

You can not present evidence without resources. And you cannot present evidence that those with the ability and resources are surpressing.
That does not mean that the falsity they provide you is the truth. Ala Mugabe.

Sagamite:

It might not be, but it is far better than being fed manipulated/tailored data.

Sagamite:

As I said, it is terrorism. The private groups will be targeted. The Gay terrorist will bombard them. Which firm do you know that will publicly stand against gays? Why will they want to erode their profit when keeping quiet is more beneficial? Even Churches are made scared shyt of backlash in the UK if they make too much noise. If you self-censor, you are left alone, if you are pro-gay, then you are praised and referenced.
So any private firm will know the rules and will look at their shareholder interest. Only government is with the power and funds to engage such research and it is their obligation to allow balance but they don't due to minority tyrants like Obama did with the US military.

Sagamite:

Oh, finally, we get there.
So you realise their is no grounds to ban polygamy and the West only do so as it is not agreeable to their moral standards. Thank the Lord.

Sagamite:

So your judged should know laws are made based on morality.

Sagamite:

True! That is why I never said paedophilia should be legalised. I said if homosexuality is a sexual orientation, then paedophilia is also one.
Since we can not persecute people based on their "sexual orientation", then paedos need help not condemnation.
I think they are both sick and need treatment, the only natural sexual orientation is STRAIGHT.

Sagamite:

Don't know. Never looked into it.
If it exists in the natural world, then it is. If not, then it is not.

Sagamite:

All I know is that, if it is done by telephone or face to face, there is a high risk it will not reflect people's real position in the West or the Arab world.
Anonymous mail or internet reduces that radically. The minute you showed me the stats, that risk flashed straight in my head.

Sagamite:

Not in those countries.
Majority in those countries abhor homosexuality but yet some few have changed the laws irrespective. The next stage is to lock their views out of the popular media and then dragoon them to accept homosexuality or brainwash kids that it is a "normal" alternative lifestyle/family unit, and then claim it is now accepted.

Sagamite:

I see. So tyranny of the minority is acceptable in a democracy. 

Sagamite:

You need to start paying attention then.
I am just highlighting the cultural war. Some have hijacked to brainwash with rubbish, not logic.

Sagamite:

Amsorry?
What relevance does that argument of women rights have on banning polygamy in the US?
If an adult is not willing to consent to polygamy in the US then they should not participate. Simple.
What is wrong with 8 consenting adults, they have no "civil rights" but gays do?

Sagamite:

Why not? 
You finally see you can not argue it?
Disgust is the reason.

Sagamite:

Please show me where I said animal behaviour should determine human behaviour?
Are you struggling with comprehension?
I said nothing WE DO naturally, that does not exist in the natural world. Not the other way round.

Animal behaviour is a VEEEEEEEEEEEERY good indicator to observe what we do that is natural. A VEEEEEEERY good indicator.

Sagamite:

Does these meet the following criteria?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=279591.msg3990475#msg3990475

Sagamite:

I have already giving you reasons early. I repeat, pay attention and maybe you will also see the prescience and clairvoyance.
Compare race with sex, age, ethnic group etc. All natural. Classification: Discrimination based on SUPERIORITY. THEY ARE ALL NATURAL.
Compare homosexuality with paedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality etc. All mental disorders that need treatment. Classification: Disapproval based on MORALS. THEY ARE ALL DEVIANTS.
They are all deviants with unnatural sexual desires. Their desires will not be seen and proved in the animal world.

makajibbz:

dis is jus anoda sign d world's comin to an end.

makajibbz:

dis is jus anoda sign d world's comin to an end.

bawomolo:

lol oh really

bawomolo:

lol oh really

Sagamite:

You, especially, are going to HELL!!!

BE SAVED TODAY!

Take the blood.

Otherwise don't worry, another 300 years will pass and you will still see them ranting that they see evidence of the world coming to an end.

makajibbz:

take it easy.
diplomacy is the key.