TV01:

...c'mon Free. whatever I thought about you, I always considered you better than this. You started so assertively on this thread too ?
All the bluster around "the law must do this...fundamental human rights...exclude culture & religion...consenting adults etc. etc". And now this


No be me talk am 0! Although that runaway bride aside is loaded with meaning

I read all your posts. It was on the basis of that that I posed you 4 questions, or 3, as 2 & 4 are essentially the same question from different angles.

1. Pray tell Free, where did the law conjure up marriage from? Was it created ex-nihilo? Or did it merely codify an existing cultural or religious custom?

2. And again, why the arbitrary number "2"? Or, to put it this way, if you believe that 2 consenting men together does no harm, what is the harm if it is 3 or more consenting men. What difference does that make? Why is marriage restricted to 2 people?

3. Why does the law (or society by way of the law) involve itself in marriage anyway?

4. What is the difference between 2 consenting, adult men and 3, that the law cannot handle? And as they fulfil your criteria - adult,
consenting - how can they be denied the same recognition?

You answered #1 - in which you basically debunked your own odd assertion that the law must totally exclude culture and religion, and now you've demurred.

My hope changed, but my expectations didn't.


TV

You kuku know I no send @ the emboldened.

2.Marriage should be restricted to two people because it is a lot better and safer when two people are intimately involved. Human beings are naturally selfish, feelings of jealousy which we all know to be a bad emotion will arise a lot in such relationships, need I tell you what this can cause? it is already proven to be enough hassle being with one person, why compound it by adding a 3rd person to the mix? I tire for you people o.

3. For the same reason the law involves itself in our lives, go figure.

4.The difference is that 3 people cannot rationally be in a marriage, consenting or not, the law shouldn't have to deal with what is likely to come out of such unions, if there's a way to prevent t the impending danger.

As for your no 1, I didn't debunk nada, I posited that the law shouldn't be based on religion and culture/religion because we all have it different. You can't include marriage on that as it predates recorded history and it is a universal culture, albeit practised differently

freecocoa:
Yes it is fair and not every kid in the playground has a mum and dad.

That innocent little girl is getting no pity from you obviously, I am crying on your behalf...literally

Kudos to America though, this is another win for God's own country in its gradual and systematic neo-colonization of the world...they now have another mentally colonized African in the person of Freecocoa.
Cheers!!!





Honestly, this is why I will continue to love and admire the Chinese - copy their (USA) technology and science, but never their culture....

crackhaus:

That innocent little girl is getting no pity from you obviously, I am crying on your behalf...literally

Kudos to America though, this is another win for God's own country in its gradual and systematic neo-colonization of the world...they now have another mentally colonized African in the person of Freecocoa.
Cheers!!!





Honestly, this is why I will continue to love and admire the Chinese - copy their (USA) technology and science, but never their culture....

Why exactly should I pity a girl who has two people willing to dedicate their lives to loving her? You don't need to cry for me, cry for yourself for being so hypocritical and shallow minded.

I see you can't make a point without seeking to provoke somebody, nonsense.

freecocoa:
Why exactly should I pity a girl who has two people willing to dedicate their lives to loving her? You don't need to cry for me, cry for yourself for being so hypocritical and shallow minded.

That I can't wrap my head around two people of the same sex having sexual relations and pretending to be husband and husband wife while raising an innocent child who doesn't know any better, means I'm hypocritical and shallow minded? Lmao

The gods are indeed wise.

I see you can't make a point without seeking to provoke somebody, nonsense.

I also see you can't read a point meant to provoke you without actually getting provoked and giving me the satisfaction, sense.

crackhaus:

That I can't wrap my head around two people of the same sex having sexual relations and pretending to be husband and husband wife while raising an innocent child who doesn't know any better, means I'm hypocritical and shallow minded? Lmao

The gods are indeed wise.




I also see you can't read a point meant to provoke you without actually getting provoked and giving me the satisfaction, sense.

Crackie, but when we were kids, we weren't privy to know how our parents did or what they did behind closed doors. So that is one point, we don't expose our sexual shenighans to kids.

2)if a father can raise a child himself, then it shouldn't matter if there was another guy in the same household.
Men are already doing it by themselves.
3) so if we don't show kids our sex lives (hetero or homo), and we have single parents of either sex raising children, then it shouldn't be a problem to have more than one adult of the same sex in the household. It has nothing to do with providing care and love and raising the child.

crackhaus:

That I can't wrap my head around two people of the same sex having sexual relations and pretending to be husband and husband wife while raising an innocent child who doesn't know any better, means I'm hypocritical and shallow minded? Lmao

The gods are indeed wise.




I also see you can't read a point meant to provoke you without getting provoked and giving me the satisfaction.

Yes you are very hypocritical and shallow minded, that is why you can't see the good in them raising a child, like being gay automatically makes a person evil.


I'm not provoked at you trying to provoke me, I am because it's very silly of you to want to do that always, it makes the whole exchange sound very immature and I've outgrown that, behave yourself.

shaybebaby:

Crackie, but when we were kids, we weren't privy to know how our parents did or what they did behind closed doors. So that is one point, we don't expose our sexual shenighans to kids.

2)if a father can raise a child himself, then it shouldn't matter if there was another guy in the same household.
Men are already doing it by themselves.
3) so if we don't show kids our sex lives (hetero or homo), and we have single parents of either sex raising children, then it shouldn't be a problem to have more than one adult of the same sex in the household. It has nothing to do with providing care and love and raising the child.

1. Good point, but do you really feel within your heart of hearts that the child wouldn't know that she has two daddies who are seriously loved up?
Wouldn't she as a result of this see herself differently when she's in the midst of other kids in a park or in a museum, and then see these kids with a daddy and a mummy?


2. It matters that there's another guy in the household in this case because they would definitely be kissing and doing all those lovey dovey stuff a typical mum and dad would in front of their kids.

3. Good point again, the care and love they would give was never my issue.
My issue is the abnormality of the whole situation, there's no way you can't see this whole setup as abnormal...come on now!

shaybebaby:

Crackie, but when we were kids, we weren't privy to know how our parents did or what they did behind closed doors. So that is one point, we don't expose our sexual shenighans to kids.

That was then, this is now. I tell you, kids of today know more than we did when we were kids, all thanks for the information age.

2)if a father can raise a child himself, then it shouldn't matter if there was another guy in the same household.
Men are already doing it by themselves.

Yes men are raising kids alone, single parents are everywhere, but you still can't deny that kids who grew up under the care and attention of loving parents (man and woman) tend to be happier and those who don't.

3) so if we don't show kids our sex lives (hetero or homo), and we have single parents of either sex raising children, then it shouldn't be a problem to have more than one adult of the same sex in the household. It has nothing to do with providing care and love and raising the child

I'm telling you the kid will ask questions? Imagine having a kid ask his dad: "dad, how come I don't have a mummy?". You think telling the kid she was the result of an experiment will make the kid smile?

freecocoa:
Yes you are very hypocritical and shallow minded, that is why you can't see the good in them raising a child, like being gay automatically makes a person evil.

Lol, you haven't been paying attention then.
In all my time on NL arguing against homosexuality, I have never for once come at it from a religious or moral angle...ever!

I don't think gays are evil, I just know they're not normal.
What I have always argued is the rationality of it, never the morality of it.

Two men can kiss, fvck, and be in love...whatever, they're just sick with weird sexual deviance.
But then, they now want to marry, pretend to be husband and wife, then take it a step further and raise kids in such a convoluted union...seriously?
This right here has gone way past them just being sick, this here is now FULL-ON MENTALLY RETAR.DED MODE, LEVEL 100..

I'm not provoked at you trying to provoke me, I am because it's very silly of you to want to do that always, it makes the whole exchange sound very immature and I've outgrown that, behave yourself.

Girl, you've known my moniker a while on NL... When has it ever been mature or tried to be?

crackhaus:

Lol, you haven't been paying attention then.
In all my time on NL arguing against homosexuality, I have never for once come at it from a religious or moral angle...ever!

I don't think gays are evil, I just know they're not normal.
What I have always argued is the rationality of it, never the morality of it.

Two men can kiss, fvck, and be in love...whatever, they're just sick with weird sexual deviance.
But then, they now want to marry, pretend to be husband and wife, then take it a step further and raise kids in such a convoluted union...seriously?
This right here has gone way past them just being sick, this here is now FULL-ON MENTALLY RETAR.DED MODE, LEVEL 100..



Girl, you've known my moniker a while on NL... When has it ever been mature or tried to be?

Ngwanu continue being immature, I can't deal with that.

crackhaus:

1. Good point, but do you really feel within your heart of hearts that the child wouldn't know that she has two daddies who are seriously loved up?
Wouldn't she as a result of this see herself differently when she's in the midst of other kids in a park or in a museum, and then see these kids with a daddy and a mummy?


2. It matters that there's another guy in the household in this case because they would definitely be kissing and doing all those lovey dovey stuff a typical mum and dad would in front of their kids.

3. Good point again, the care and love they would give was never my issue.
My issue is the abnormality of the whole situation, there's no way you can't see this whole setup as abnormal...come on now!

I will not lie and say that it is something I can relate to because I am attracted to the opposite sex and yes, I found it strange when I became aware of the concept.

So you finding it abnormal isn't wrong. But when we look at the wider concept of normal, it is relative.
A child like that will become aware of the difference in her circumstances but there is some good that will come out.
Kids bond with people who show them the most love and affection. We impart our beliefs on to our kids but ultimately they find their place in the world, their own identity.
Now I dare say the outcome of this "abnormality" will be a child who growns up in an unconventional but nonetheless a loving home.
A child who "will" ask and have to answer questions about why she has two daddies.
A child who as long as she remains loved and supported will acknowledge that yes her circumstances may be different but she had two parents who did the best they could.
If she grows up straight, she will be more accepting of other people and situations, ..less judgemental (this is not limited to sexual preferences).
If she is gay, she will find it easier to accept herself.

freecocoa:
Ngwanu continue being immature, I can't deal with that.

Okay mummy.

shaybebaby:

I will not lie and say that it is something I can relate to because I am attracted to the opposite sex and yes, I found it strange when I became aware of the concept.

So you finding it abnormal isn't wrong. But when we look at the wider concept of normal, it is relative.
A child like that will become aware of the difference in her circumstances but there is some good that will come out.
Kids bond with people who show them the most love and affection. We impart our beliefs on to our kids but ultimately they find their place in the world, their own identity.
Now I dare say the outcome of this "abnormality" will be a child who growns up in an unconventional but nonetheless a loving home.
A child who "will" ask and have to answer questions about why she has two daddies.
A child who as long as she remains loved and supported will acknowledge that yes her circumstances may be different but she had two parents who did the best they could.
If she grows up straight, she will be more accepting of other people and situations, ..less judgemental (this is not limited to sexual preferences).
If she is gay, she will find it easier to accept herself.

This is inspiring...you almost made a believer out of me.

The thing is I'm more concerned with the 'why'.
Why do two men feel they are entitled to get married, why do they feel they should be allowed to raise a kid, and why above all do the rest of us have to accept their way of life whether we like it or not...

You know how to paint pictures with your words and sentences BTW

crackhaus:

Lol, you haven't been paying attention then.
In all my time on NL arguing against homosexuality, I have never for once come at it from a religious or moral angle...ever!

I don't think gays are evil, I just know they're not normal.

They are NOT NORMAL in the way that they are rather unusual because they tend to represent a small fraction of any society.
If you understand normal as not suffering from any mental disorder then we would FIRST have to determine the basis on which a mental disorder can be diagnosed.

What I have always argued is the rationality of it, never the morality of it.

The rationality of human and animal se.xual behavior lies in its ir-rationality and this is why societies across the world have tried to control free s.exual expression by means of moral values and norms. There is nothing rational about people engaging in SEVERAL "deviant" s.exual practices / preferences. It can serve as a way to procreate but it more often than not serves our physical and emotional needs for satisfaction. How we achieve this satisfaction differs GREATLY even among hetereos.exual couples - they disguise themselves, beat one another up, pee on top of each other, use toys, do it in front of others, pretend to be dogs, engage in group s.ex of all possible constellations, practice ana.l, ejacu.late on each other's face, play different bizarre or not so bizarre roles ....

WHAT IS RATIONAL ABOUT IT?

[size=3pt]And no, you are not approaching the topic rationally, you are quite emotional about it. You are making progress.[/size]

Two men can kiss, fvck, and be in love...whatever, they're just sick with weird sexual deviance.

Well, I have a colleague I am very fond of for a number of reasons. He is one of the best. He does not seem sick to me. In fact, he is one of the noblest characters I have ever had the pleasure to meet. He is gay and married.

But then, they now want to marry, pretend to be husband and wife, then take it a step further and raise kids in such a convoluted union...seriously?
This right here has gone way past them just being sick, this here is now FULL-ON MENTALLY RETAR.DED MODE, LEVEL 100..

They don't want to pretend to be husband and wife. They - like many others - want to take their relationship to another level. In this, they are NORMAL since they match the mainstream PERFECTLY.

crackhaus:

This is inspiring...you almost made a believer out of me.

The thing is I'm more concerned with the 'why'.
Why do two men feel they are entitled to get married, why do they feel they should be allowed to raise a kid, and why above all do the rest of us have to accept their way of life whether we like it or not...

You know how to paint pictures with your words and sentences BTW

Ah, thank you..you are very kind.
To answer your question, I can only imagine that it's because they want the same people in love want. Love, marriage and children. The love bit is the bit complicated because their tendencies does not fall in the widely accepted.
Thing is, asides from the mechanics of how they have sex (obviously), they are no different from heterosexual couples, fights, arguments, who's cheating on who, unrequited love. We are all human at the end of the day.
I'll tell you something, the person I love most in the world is different to the norm.
But he taught me that different is simply that, different ..not flawed. Maybe a starting point to help accept at the minimum is to look beyond what divides us and focus on our commonalities.

shaybebaby:

Ah, thank you..you are very kind.
To answer your question, I can only imagine that it's because they want the same people in love want. Love, marriage and children. The love bit is the bit complicated because their tendencies does not fall in the widely accepted.
Thing is, asides from the mechanics of how they have sex (obviously), they are no different from heterosexual couples, fights, arguments, who's cheating on who, unrequited love. We are all human at the end of the day.
I'll tell you something, the person I love most in the world is different to the norm.
But he taught me that different is simply that, different ..not flawed. Maybe a starting point to help accept at the minimum is to look beyond what divides us and focus on our commonalities.

Hmmmm.
It isn't everyday crackhaus doesn't know how to respond to a comment on NL... This is new!

Not like I'm completely won over though, but this was a real good emotional delivery on your part enough to make anyone ponder for a while.

And to think you're neither gay nor feminist says a lot too...

Mindfulness:


They are NOT NORMAL in the way that they are rather unusual because they tend to represent a small fraction of any society.
If you understand normal as not suffering from any mental disorder then we would FIRST have to determine the basis on which a mental disorder can be diagnosed.



The rationality of human and animal se.xual behavior lies in its ir-rationality and this is why societies across the world have tried to control free s.exual expression by means of moral values and norms. There is nothing rational about people engaging in SEVERAL "deviant" s.exual practices / preferences. It can serve as a way to procreate but it more often than not serves our physical and emotional needs for satisfaction. How we achieve this satisfaction differs GREATLY even among hetereos.exual couples - they disguise themselves, beat one another up, pee on top of each other, use toys, do it in front of others, pretend to be dogs, engage in group s.ex of all possible constellations, practice ana.l, ejacu.late on each other's face, play different bizarre or not so bizarre roles ....

WHAT IS RATIONAL ABOUT IT?

[size=3pt]And no, you are not approaching the topic rationally, you are quite emotional about it. You are making progress.[/size]



Well, I have a colleague I am very fond of for a number of reasons. He is one of the best. He does not seem sick to me. In fact, he is one of the noblest characters I have ever had the pleasure to meet. He is gay and married.



They don't want to pretend to be husband and wife. They - like many others - want to take their relationship to another level. In this, they are NORMAL since they match the mainstream PERFECTLY.

Lmao, really? All this for me?

I'll just agree to everything you typed cos I'm all out of ammo tonight...
I believe I still have half-a-bottle of some Red Label in this house, I better go do something about that liquor screaming my name.

I'll tell you something, the person I love most in the world is different to the norm.
But he taught me that different is simply that, different ..not flawed. Maybe a starting point to help accept at the minimum is to look beyond what divides us and focus on our commonalities.

Tell me crackhaus, what do you have in common with a serial killer? aside from the obvious fact you both are human beings?

crackhaus:

Hmmmm.
It isn't everyday crackhaus can't seem to know how to respond to a comment on NL... This is new!

Not like I'm completely won over though, but this was a real good emotional delivery on your part enough to want to make anyone ponder for a while.

And to think you're neither gay nor feminist says a lot too...

JoeBlocks:


Tell me crackhaus, what do you have in common with a serial killer? aside from the obvious fact you both are human beings?

I wouldn't know man, I've never met one.

Doesn't mean we should let serial killing become legal though on the grounds that serial killers are still humans, I get your point...

crackhaus:

Hmmmm.
It isn't everyday crackhaus doesn't know how to respond to a comment on NL... This is new!

Not like I'm completely won over though, but this was a real good emotional delivery on your part enough to make anyone ponder for a while.

And to think you're neither gay nor feminist says a lot too...

I would like to say I respect your honesty here. Sometimes, I think we are all guilty of debating for the sake of being right, I won vs I lost. Your honesty here is being open to consider a different point view. That is the most anyone can ask and you have granted that. Consideration is different from acceptance and people confuse the two.
The labels, gay, feminist, misogynist, black, white, aethist, Christian, muslim..all serve to divide and focus on our differences. No wonder we are always fighting, everyone is too busy pointing it out and as such can't see the commonalities as well.

crackhaus:

I wouldn't know man, I've never met one.

Doesn't mean we should let serial killing become legal though on the grounds that serial killers are still humans, I get your point...

LOL. I hear you.

Please, no one in this world should try to convince me that gays are normal people. They're abnormal and sick and the society should be purge of their existence. They're pollutants.

And now they want to start raising kid(s), oh just kill me already.

freecocoa:
You kuku know I no send @ the emboldened.

If you read with a modicum of understanding, you will realise that relatively speaking, there isn't actually anything to send

freecocoa:
2.Marriage should be restricted to two people because it is a lot better and safer when two people are intimately involved. Human beings are naturally selfish, feelings of jealousy which we all know to be a bad emotion will arise a lot in such relationships, need I tell you what this can cause? it is already proven to be enough hassle being with one person, why compound it by adding a 3rd person to the mix? I tire for you people o.

And this assertion you wrote here is for the law to decide? What is the laws business in managing peoples emotions, or how they configure their domestic arrangements? Especially if they meet your stated criteria of adult and consensual? Listen; the laws around marriage and the number 2 had nothing to do with safety or managing emotions. Try again, and try harder.

freecocoa:
3. For the same reason the law involves itself in our lives, go figure.

Nothing to figure - it's evident. So I repeat, why does the law codify and privilege the formal union of a man and a woman? And recognise it as a marriage?

freecocoa:
4.The difference is that 3 people cannot rationally be in a marriage, consenting or not, the law shouldn't have to deal with what is likely to come out of such unions, if there's a way to prevent t the impending danger.

What is a marriage Free? I've answered you - 2 paras above - on this. What is the likely outcome of 2 men that materially differs from 3, that means 2 is a marriage and 3 is not? And what is the outcome that leads society to recognise and privilege the union of a male and female?

freecocoa:
As for your no 1, I didn't debunk nada, I posited that the law shouldn't be based on religion and culture/religion because we all have it different. You can't include marriage on that as it predates recorded history and it is a universal culture, albeit practised differently

At it's most basic, all the law does is codify existing cultural norms. And you keep rebutting your own assertion. It's universally and historically male/female - for a reason. The law does not have to involve itself in peoples domestic arrangements, why does it for the committed union of a male and female?

Please expound this your ideology end-to-end. Loads of assertions about what the law is and should do, about rights and consenting adults. And to simply explain what marriage is, and why 2 should be afforded privileges that 3 are not is beyond you


TV

TV01:

If you read with a modicum of understanding, you will realise that relatively speaking, there isn't actually anything to send


And this assertion you wrote here is for the law to decide? What is the laws business in managing peoples emotions, or how they configure their domestic arrangements? Especially if they meet your stated criteria of adult and consensual? Listen; the laws around marriage and the number 2 had nothing to do with safety or managing emotions. Try again, and try harder.


Nothing to figure - it's evident. So I repeat, why does the law codify and privilege the formal union of a man and a woman? And recognise it as a marriage?


What is a marriage Free? I've answered you - 2 paras above - on this. What is the likely outcome of 2 men that materially differs from 3, that means 2 is a marriage and 3 is not? And what is the outcome that leads society to recognise and privilege the union of a male and female?


At it's most basic, all the law does is codify existing cultural norms. And you keep rebutting your own assertion. It's universally and historically male/female - for a reason. The law does not have to involve itself in peoples domestic arrangements, why does it for the committed union of a male and female?

Please expound this your ideology end-to-end. Loads of assertions about what the law is and should do, about rights and consenting adults. And to simply explain what marriage is, and why 2 should be afforded privileges that 3 are not is beyond you


TV

You know it's beyond me and you are still disturbing me on the matter, TV biko I'm tired of this topic.


Onto the next one.

freecocoa:
You know it's beyond me and you are still disturbing me on the matter, TV biko I'm tired of this topic.
Onto the next one.

JoeBlocks:
And this is the second time you're running with your tail between your legs. First me, then TV. One would think you're remotely related to the runaway bride.

We always give them the benefit of the doubt, yet they never cease to disappoint. Be that sooner or later .

@OP what happened here is the simply indicative of the degeneracy that results from godlessness - as are those who would defend it.


TV

TV01:



We always give them the benefit of the doubt, yet they never cease to disappoint. Be that sooner or later .

@OP what happened here is the simply indicative of the degeneracy that results from godlessness - as are those who would defend it.


TV

You know the funny thing is that, all these is in your head(s).

Now it's godlessness, na this one go just annoy me now, like you are any better than those homos, what makes you better please?

crackhaus:

Lmao, really? All this for me?

I'll just agree to everything you typed cos I'm all out of ammo tonight...
I believe I still have half-a-bottle of some Red Label in this house, I better go do something about that liquor screaming my name.

I hope you had a nice evening.

shaybebaby:

I would like to say I respect your honesty here. Sometimes, I think we are all guilty of debating for the sake of being right, I won vs I lost. Your honesty here is being open to consider a different point view. That is the most anyone can ask and you have granted that. Consideration is different from acceptance and people confuse the two.
The labels, gay, feminist, misogynist, black, white, aethist, Christian, muslim..all serve to divide and focus on our differences. No wonder we are always fighting, everyone is too busy pointing it out and as such can't see the commonalities as well.

You two have my RESPECT!

Mindfulness:




You two have my RESPECT!

We must be very careful about the things we're open to. Being open can have disastrous consequences... A man who opens his mind to anything, will find out that anything can take over his mind.

So, sometimes, being open is cool, sometimes its not, that's why we must allow reason and logic to be our guide.

I'll say open mindedness was one of the reason that help the spread of homosexuality.

Cc: crackhaus

shaybebaby:

I would like to say I respect your honesty here. Sometimes, I think we are all guilty of debating for the sake of being right, I won vs I lost. Your honesty here is being open to consider a different point view. That is the most anyone can ask and you have granted that. Consideration is different from acceptance and people confuse the two.
The labels, gay, feminist, misogynist, black, white, aethist, Christian, muslim..all serve to divide and focus on our differences. No wonder we are always fighting, everyone is too busy pointing it out and as such can't see the commonalities as well.

JoeBlocks:


We must be very careful about the things we're open to. Being open can have disastrous consequences... A man who opens his mind to anything, will find out that anything can take over his mind.

So, sometimes, being open is cool, sometimes its not, that's why we must allow reason and logic to be our guide.

I'll say open mindedness was one of the reason that help the spread of homosexuality.

And so?

Mindfulness:


And so?

And so, that's why we are where we are today. People telling us to accept why a man marries another man etc.

I can't even start with transgender...

JoeBlocks:
And so, that's why we are where we are today. People telling us to accept why a man marries another man etc.

I can't even start with transgender...

Are gays responsible for the problems Nigeria is facing?

Mindfulness:


Are gays responsible for the problems Nigeria is facing?

You misunderstood me. I never said gays were responsible for where we are today. I only implied that open mindedness is among the reason why homosexuality invaded Nigeria.

All this, "I was born this way" bullshit doesn't even come to it.