pickabeau1:


Again I. Ask u what is your opinion on. Homosexuality

non of your business

You. Still don't get it...

I would if you had a point

Thee same reasons that granted them rights ensure that in 20 y...incestous marriage will be allowed

and your point being that the kids from such unions even if they could turn out deformed will be overlooked to grant the license.the same way paedophilia will be granted despite being harmful to the kids but because the adults right to who he wants to sex is more important. You still think you're making sense. Baffles me

On the beating...I'm not a woman beater

I'm not interested in gay folks or gettin likes from them

no you're interested. Not in getting likes but in crushing them.


Science says they can't help who they are
Rather its selective bigots like you who r the dangerous ones.

actually you're the one dangerous to them. You think that by pointing out some hitches in their operation,hopefully you can convince others to be against them.



They feel like a woman who was unfortunately born as a man
Its a science

Read up coco
maybe you should give yourself that advice. You obviously don't reaw what I type. As shown below.



You allocate rights based on your feelings or want to sterilise them because it feels iffy to u.

and for the gazilionth time. It has nothing to do with how I feel but what my concerns about the possible consequences would be to the kids. Now I've said that like a hundred times on this same thread. Yet you chose to ignore that and insist that it is because of my feelings. Even a blind man can see why I say you're mischievous and ALWAYs seek to DELIBERATELY misundertand me.
Any comment you make about my opinion should not be taken seriously because it is obvious you see what you want to see.
Yet you claim you don't get off on antagonizing me? You just shot yourself win the foot by prving your bias and unwillingness to accept the reason I gave you for my stance.
.

However if I had gender disorder n could change my sex and I love MMA
I will fight women.. Simple

no one is stopping you... Yet. One or two more of such incidences,then we'll see if such policies will be reviewed or not.


Its not sentiments...all what u've been saying is just sentiments.

I used the consequence of incesst as a pivot for my opinion on that issue.
I used the natural strength a guy has acquired in his adolescent and pubescent stage as pivot for my stance on the other issue.
Yet it is not fact to you. But sentiments

One wonders what's really your opinion about gays transgender and incestuous couples is.

Are you for or against?
All I can see is you slyly trying to pit one against another without actually making your stand know. Yet you've the effrontery to ask me what my opinion abouts gays is.

Side jabs and not wanting to go down that road.

Says the guy who brought up the topic and laced it with enough side jabs.
Too late to wiggle out.

Nonso23:
Throw aside the side jabs biko. It doesn't advance your point by even 1 micro-metre.
This issue was thoroughly dealt with in that other thread. I'm not about to go down that road again.

Nonso23:
Who is being sentimental here?
Someone who believes a great work of fiction is sufficient for a court to rescind on its decision or another who requests for solid proof?

Your guess is as good as mine.

how is simply stating, "that you are gay and you deserve your rights" solid proof of anything?
Since when does a person's right to be gay override the right to protect the child's interests in a maintenance case where the most important thing is the welfare of the child to begin with.

Fact remains a fit and proper parent would know where to take and not to take their minor children, plus what you can and cannot expose to them, its not rocket science?
Soon strippers will defend taking their children to their place of work, because if a gay guy can get away with it, why should her case be regarded as " endangerment of the child"

You cannot turn a blind eye to a children's rights and wellbeing simply because u want to prove gay people have rights too. It defeats the purpose of protecting a child's best interests.

pickabeau1:


Don't give up

If she got joint custody but the man had primary custody.. Why is she complaining

After all thousands of men get joint custody but thee woman gets primary custody and are expected to suck it up

Why do u say d judge is this case is biased.. Coco?

If nothing happened that would warrant the man being the person most fit to take primary care of the kids,then she has a right to complain.

But like I said before,she could have doctored the story to suit her audience if not,then she's the wronged party here.

The judge was quoted to have said 'if I could give you more,I would'

What's does that mean?

I believe you're smart enough to know that comment didn't just up and come out from his mouth.

The woman must have been proven grossly incompetent to take care of the kids.
If not.

It spells nothing else but bias.

If I have to explain that to you,why wouldn't I want to give up?
Like who needs to get an explanation for that comment?

Preach the side jabbing message to yourself.

More like
I slap you and begin to preach to you against violence. Classic.

Nonso23:
You see what you want to see.
Continue with the 'side-jabbing'. Your perogative.

cococandy:

One wonders what's really your opinion about gays transgender and incestuous couples is.

Are you for or against?
All I can see is you slyly trying to pit one against another without actually making your stand know. Yet you've the effrontery to ask me what my opinion abouts gays is.

All still sentiments
I have made my opinion on gays known

They r who they are and they can't change it
Science has shown that to be so also

That's the fact on ground but you as usual spout some spiel about pitting one camp or sly

There is no conspiracy here...

cococandy:

If nothing happened that would warrant the man being the person most fit to take primary care of the kids,then she has a right to complain.

But like I said before,she could have doctored the story to suit her audience if not,then she's the wronged party here.

The judge was quoted to have said 'if I could give you more,I would'

What's does that mean?

I believe you're smart enough to know that comment didn't just up and come out from his mouth.

The woman must have been proven grossly incompetent to take care of the kids.
If not.

It spells nothing else but bias.

If I have to explain that to you,why wouldn't I want to give up?
Like who needs to get an explanation for that comment?

It means she was not fit to be a mother or granted primary custody

But of course you don't believe some women are unfit to be mothers


Appeal to female instincts never dealing with d issue

Nonso23:
You are still quoting that best seller novel as evidence Sentimental much?
If i were to indulge you.
The judge's statement means one thing only.
His rights were being overlooked.
He was able to point them out with proof.
His rights were reinstated.
DUE PROCESS.
Wife's turn. All we see is 'prose'. Lovely prose.

please show me where what you quoted in that particular post is in her novel? I'm taking about the legal position of children's rights in maintenance case. In case you didn't know the child's interests supersedes everything else.
And i doubt if taking a minor child to places there are not supposed and exposing them to certain things they are too young for as minors all in the name of exercising your personal rights, is in anyway solid proof that a person is fit and proper be in the care of children.

Nonso23:
The way you say A on one thread and B on another is really amusing. Mother = Primary care giver now abi? Because divorce is involved. Whatever happened to your gospel of 'stay at home dads' as primary care givers to the child. This una 'victim' chant is very amusing.

Chai! Una don see ojoro wey pass una own.
NO. That isn't how the judge will interpret the above. The gay man can make a case of self preservation - (protecting himself from the attack of society. A very strong case for homosexuals BTW) and also claim to have considered his homosex condition as something he had to protect his family from and deal with his own way. Which he did for 10 solid years without cheating. Yes he did not cheat. The court upholds the principle of ''Innocent till substantial evidence proves you guilty''. From the story, e sure me say wifey no get shishi to put forward as evidence else she definitely would have so he was a faithful husband....

The Judge was impressed with his case. I would be too, if i were in his shoes.
The truth is everything you and Mondisweets listed are very insufficient to launch even a feeble appeal in homosex tolerant countries.

He's in a better position to take care of them in the eyes of the law not forgetting his LGBT rights too.

The story doesn't look doctored at all. It's just not the norm you women are used to regaling yourselves with.

Maybe now you'll feel the pain of men who lose
their kids and half their fortune in a very peaceful
divorce. Messy divorce, anybody

Enjoy your Independence day celebrations.

I no be homo ooo, but I have no choice than to shout GBAM! to the above post.

I don't believe some women are unfit mothers?


Me who says (on several threads) that not everyone who's female was born to be a mother. Citing examples of those who even dump theirs at the waste bins in the dead of night.
Telling women not to get pressured into marriage or having babies when they are not yet ready because the society dictates so.

Like I said before,you'll keep exposing yourself as someone who set out to ALWAYS misunderstand me.

Suit yourself.
Before you go chanting your shifting the goal post phrase again:

Saying a mother is usually the primary care giver doesn't mean all women were born to be mothers. Same as saying a man is the primary provider doesn't mean all men are born providers. Some don't just have it in them.
Guess I've to spell everything out to avoid more 'misunderstanding'

As far as you keep picking parts of my posts which suit your percieved image of me while ignoring the other parts that seeks to put a balance to my general opinions,you'll keep making such unfounded comments like the bolded.


If you'd noted that my first post on this thread says I suspect the woman doctored the story,that should have been enough to prove to you I think the judge gave the man custody (even when the supposed primary care giver is alive) for reasons she didn't state in her narrative.
Which means I understand she could have been at fault.
Even my second post was dripping with sarcasm at her story.meaning I found it hard to believe

The only other optiong being bias on the judge's part. But first most likely because she wasn't fit. As is CLEARLY implied in my first post

Which means your post @ bolded is trash.

pickabeau1:

It means she was not fit to be a mother or granted primary custody

But of course you don't believe some women are unfit to be mother


Appeal to female instincts never dealing with d issue

Nonso23:

The emboldened. Same with me. Unless anything that violates women rights is now a crime

please point out the woman's rights that she claimed to be violated because all i saw was a violations of the rights and wellbeing of minor children. I would really love for u to show us specifically where she referred to women's rights...

cococandy: I don't believe some women are unfit mothers?


Me who says (on several threads) that not everyone who's female was born to be a mother. Citing examples of those who even dump theirs at the waste bins in the dead of night.
Telling women not to get pressured into marriage or having babies when they are not yet ready because the society dictates so.

Like I said before,you'll keep exposing yourself as someone who set out to ALWAYS misunderstand me.

Suit yourself.
Before you go chanting your shifting the goal post phrase again:

Saying a mother is usually the primary care giver doesn't mean all women were born to be mothers. Same as saying a man is the primary provider doesn't mean all men are born providers. Some don't just have it in them.

As far as you keep picking parts of my posts which suit your percieved image of me while ignoring the other parts that seeks to put a balance to my general opinions,you'll keep making such unfounded comments like the bolded.


If you'd noted that my first post on this thread says I suspect the woman doctored the story,that should have been enough to prove to you I think the judge gave the man custody (even when the supposed primary care giver is alive) for reasons she didn't state in her narrative.
Which means I understand she could have been at fault.
The only other optiong being bias on the judge's part. But first most likely because she wasn't fit. As is CLEARLY implied in my first post

Which means your post @ bolded is trash.

Noted...

Nonso23:
Before i started i placed a simple clause.
'IF I WERE TO INDULGE YOU'

The rest of the post is off the tangent. I'm not interested in arguing child right or basing court decisions on great literary works.
As far as i'm concerned anything based of her essay is hokum i'm not willing to entertain.

how can you base an argument on a maintenance case on anything else apart from children's rights when they are the main reason for maintenance cases anyway its like saying we are not going to focus on the cause of death in a murder case

Talk about shifting the goal post.

He won't answer you.
Because it'll prove him to be the mischief maker that he is.

Making baseless accusations they can't prove

Mondisweets: please point out the woman's rights that she claimed to be violated because all i saw was a violations of the rights and wellbeing of minor children. I would really love for u to show us specifically where she referred to women's rights...

cococandy: He won't answer you.
Because it'll prove him to be the mischief maker that he is.

Making baseless accusations they can't prove

tell me about it

Good.

So you know your preaching about side jabs and going back to that thread isn't justified.

Reason being that you did both first and I followed suit.

And your intentions were not innocent as you tried to imply with 'killing mosquito' line

Nonso23:
If you did it to kill a mosquito feeding of my precious blood, then your gospel against violence is justified.

As in

Mondisweets: tell me about it

cococandy:
As in

im agreeing with you, thats why i said that

Mondisweets: please point out the woman's rights that she claimed to be violated because all i saw was a violations of the rights and wellbeing of minor children. I would really love for u to show us specifically where she referred to women's rights...

Which violation of child rights did u see

I know.
Lol

This is the second time I'm getting that.

Mondisweets: im agreeing with you, thats why i said that

Nonso23:
I never said i wouldn't argue on child rights but only if it is within the context of this thread and not based on some prose. ] Either than that. OYO.
Your previous quote failed to meet both criteria.
So you see, you are the one shifting the goal post here.

Nonso23:
Before i started i placed a simple clause.
'IF I WERE TO INDULGE YOU'

The rest of the post is off the tangent. I'm not interested in arguing child right or basing court decisions on great literary works.
As far as i'm concerned anything based of her essay is hokum i'm not willing to entertain.

guess who is contradicting himself...

Modified.

I don tire.

pickabeau1:

Which violation of child rights did u see

1.) the children went to the first ceremony against their will. Violation of the right to freedom of choice and association, where they actually have a right to choose to do, or not to something.

2.) underage children being taken to bars and displaying provocative art in a house minor children live in. This can be detrimental to the wellbeing of a child and it also violates a child's right to psychological integrity.


3.) underage children being taken to LGBT films. If you have watched any gay films, you would know the amount of sex scenes in it, that can never be suitable for minor children. Again it affects a child's right to psychological integrity.

Just saw this.
Lmao.

When will you begin to try to be a bit honest?

So LGBT movement fueled by feminism isn't part of the anti-family tools the devil is using to ruin God's work on earth?

The president of the conspiracy theorists association now suddenly thinks there's no grand conspiracy somewhere.

And now he's suddenly 'liberal' enough to accept that they are who they are and can't change themselves.

Now he doesn't have anything against liberal societies anymore.

I'll remember this for a loooooong time to come.

Bwahahahahah.
Oh I'll remember.
Good to have you in the midst of the liberals.

Tuface.

I dey come.

pickabeau1:

All still sentiments
I have made my opinion on gays known

They r who they are and they can't change it
Science has shown that to be so also

That's the fact on ground but you as usual spout some spiel about pitting one camp or sly

There is no conspiracy here...