[ATLian]

This is a topic that is dear to my heart. I for one do not believe that there should be unions of the same sex. I view it as abnormal and repungnant to our core biological makeup.

So is right for you to deny people a basic right because it's repugnant to you? Should vegetarians deny we meat eaters the right of eating meat because killing and eating animals is repugnant and immoral and abnormal to them? I think that that's a very selfish view-point.



What I mean by this is that if a man and a woman express "love' by having coitus, gays should find a different way of expressing love and not through coitus. It makes sense.

OK, that makes absolutely no sense to me. Unless I totally misundestood your position. Please re-explain.



if a father has sexual relationship with his daughter and both of them are mature (assume daughter is over legal age) as a way of expressing their love for each other, then society will have no choice but to view it favourably.

It's not about viewing favourably. It's about it being legal. Yes, the idea of two hairy men having sex is quite unappealing, but why should it be illegal? Legality isn't (or shouldn't be) based on how favourable something is, but whether it harms other people or not.

[ATLian]

Originally Posted by chotadipo

This is a topic that is dear to my heart. I for one do not believe that there should be unions of the same sex.

One last point. The main reason why the government got involved with marriage is so as to provide legal rights to the persons in the marriage. Otherwise, logically speaking, the government should never be involved in marriages. That's why it isn't involved when all people are doing is screwing around or dating. That's why the government doesn't care how you got married.

That said, the rights the government gives married couples are numerous. And those rights are the main thing that gay couples want access to. Gay couples don't give a f.uck if you call a man and woman getting together "marriage" and you call a man and a man getting together "civil union" or whatever. The terms - marriage and weddings - are totally irrelevant. What gays really want is access to the rights that married couples get. Straights can keep the terms "wedding and marriage" coz they are just terms.

I guess in a nutshell my question is - Do you think it's right for the government to deny gays the rights that married people have only because gay sex is repugnant to you?

[fiery_preacher]

A woman can get a sperm donor. etc etc etc. I know in 1808 the only way to procreate was through sex with the mother to be, but now science has opened more doors.

Now if the act doesn't defy nature why would 100% of gay couple get their off-spring through surrogate mothersw and sperm donation?That by itself should speak volumes about the unnatural aspect of gayism.

Gay couples can adopt those kida and save them from their miserable lives!

Gay couples would subject the children to scorn and isolation in youth.They'd suffer immense psychological torment seeing that their colleagues have a mother and a father while them they have a father -dad and a father-mum or a mother - dad and a mother-mum this is great confusion.Such youth would be vulnerable to drugs and psychotic behaviors.

[jaramba]

Gay marriages and gayism is wrong; its wrong according to me and majority of human beings. And government should not entertain this malady in our country. Let those developed countries go ahead and legalise this evil act. We shouldnt be following queer lifestyles from the western world in the name of advancement or civilisation.

Marriage is an institution designed not for lovers but objectively and primarily for procreation.Period. If same sex couples can get children of their own (man to man or woman to woman) then they should marry. Or else let them screw themselves in darkness not within our eyesite or earshot. In typical African marriage setup, things like love dont arise when you are to marry. I think I should not delve into the details..

I always wonder how can men with conscience screw each other? This to me is something bordering on lunacy. Its just unacceptable. Whether we are in 21st century or not.

[chotadipo]

Originally Posted by reggie_woic

[color="Indigo"]
1. i'm sure i don't need to point out the contradictions in those 2 quotes]

I don't see any.

Originally Posted by reggie_woic

2. why should they find a different way of expressing their love for each other? furthermore, why do you feel you have ANY SAY IN IT WHATSOEVER?

Because biologically they will be going contrary to what is natural. pen.is is to v.agina as f.aeces is to a.sshole.

[chotadipo]

Originally Posted by ATLian

...So is right for you to deny people a basic right because it's repugnant to you? Should vegetarians deny we meat eaters the right of eating meat because killing and eating animals is repugnant and immoral and abnormal to them? I think that that's a very selfish view-point..

ATLian, we are talking unions here. If worse come to worse, the veggies can eat meat to survive and vice versa. You can't argue the same with gayism. It is abominable to society to engage in practises that go contrary to natural laws. The essence of being is in being natural, and by being natural, it means abiding to the call of nature. You cannot deny the fact that gayism is a sexual expression albeit an abnormal one, it is not a lifestyle or a sub-culture as they would like us to believe.

[b][color="Blue"]...OK, that makes absolutely no sense to me. Unless I totally misundestood your position. Please re-explain..[/quote]

What I meant is that when gayism is being pushed down to us, it should not be sold to as an alternative lifestyle. It is not, it is a perversion. In man-woman love unions, sex is a way of expressing love for each other. This is natural. To tell me gays can use the same will be dishonest to our core vales and principles of humanity.

[b][color="Blue"]...It's not about viewing favourably. It's about it being legal. Yes, the idea of two hairy men having sex is quite unappealing, but why should it be illegal? Legality isn't (or shouldn't be) based on how favourable something is, but whether it harms other people or not.[/quote]

It should be illegal because it goes against the natural. Legality is based on how favourable something can be, and that is why when I gave the example of father-daughter, strictly speaking if they have sex in their privacy, it harms no one. This is where your argument falls flat. You do not base a legality on only if it will harm people or not, but should be broadened to include if it stands for the core moral values prerequisite in advancement of a society.

[chotadipo]

Originally Posted by ATLian

One last point. The main reason why the government got involved with marriage is so as to provide legal rights to the persons in the marriage. Otherwise, logically speaking, the government should never be involved in marriages. That's why it isn't involved when all people are doing is screwing around or dating. That's why the government doesn't care how you got married

I don't buy the above. Marruage in one form or another has always been sanctioned by society. it is a rite of passsage. An important phase in a person's life vis a vis the community at large. This explains why since time immemorial marriage has been officially designated as a contract not only between two people but with the whole society. Governments are just modern day equivalent of tribal councils and so on.

Originally Posted by ATLian

That said, the rights the government gives married couples are numerous. And those rights are the main thing that gay couples want access to. Gay couples don't give a f.uck if you call a man and woman getting together "marriage" and you call a man and a man getting together "civil union" or whatever. The terms - marriage and weddings - are totally irrelevant. What gays really want is access to the rights that married couples get. Straights can keep the terms "wedding and marriage" coz they are just terms.

I believe the rights do not need to be granted only through unions. We do have other forms of contract the two can pursue as in come-we-stay couples. The very fact that they cannot reproduce naturally voids any form of argument on equality of contracts between normal marriages and gay unions.

Originally Posted by ATLian

I guess in a nutshell my question is - Do you think it's right for the government to deny gays the rights that married people have only because gay sex is repugnant to you?

Yes it is true and more. Not only is it undesirable in the eyes of the society but it sets a precedence for decadence, unatural indulgences, and breakdown in laws governing society as we know it.

[bible_reader]

Originally Posted by lesbiana

its a shame isn't it? that you cannot leave anything to your partner if you die and you are gay and are living anywhere in this world except South Africa...........

but i'm happy for ur boss AT,, 35 years is a long time.....

The laws were made from a natural perspective,gayism has been a shameful thing and people engaged in were few in those days.The laws were made to protect the natural.
Gayism is not natural because if man was to exist without modern technology,straight couples would endure long after gays become extinct.

[reggie_woic]

Because biologically they will be going contrary to what is natural. pen.is is to v.agina as f.aeces is to a.sshole.

so what about lesbians, chotadipo?
and straight couples that wan't the "kink" in their sex life?
and felatio?
i'm having a hard time believing that you're not viewing it from a perverted angle...one involving just men.

The very fact that they cannot reproduce naturally voids any form of argument on equality of contracts between normal marriages and gay unions.

i wonder, does this cover barren women? infertile women?

[chotadipo]

Originally Posted by reggie_woic

so what about lesbians, chotadipo?
and straight couples that wan't the "kink" in their sex life?
and fellatio?
i'm having a hard time believing that you're not viewing it from a perverted angle...one involving just men.

Reggie, let me simplify it for you. Arousal is different from coitus, we are agreed on that. Marriage is fundamentally for procreation; that is indisputable. Now since coitus can only naturally be between opposites, then it follows, matrimony can only be between opposities. Now if your wife chooses to play with your d.ick, that is her prerogative, but you must understand that she married you because she knows that the fundamental use of your d.ick is basically for her vagina. So whether you engage in kinkiness or any other form of sexual satisfaction from time to time, the fact that biological you complement each other and society recognises it as such, the world view would always be that your consummation was purely for procreation in a natural way.

Please tell any potential wife of yours that you plan to marry her but you will never have sex the natural way, she should expect herself giving you anal sex for the rest of your life while you engage her in lesbian sex only and if she agrees, please let me know so I can drop dead on the first instant.

Originally Posted by reggie_woic

i wonder, does this cover barren women? infertile women?

Reggie, you cannot use a condition that we have no control over, due to disease or malfunction of the genes etc to justify homosexuality. We all know how african societies went around the issue of barreness. We don't have to go through this again. Suffice to say, societies have well established mechanisms like adoption and surrogate birth to address such issues.