cococandy:
okay

I am spoiled because my husband loves me.

Knightngale:
I am spoiled because my husband loves me.

Good for you

cococandy:

Good for you

TV01:
Hi Free, I'm back. Miss me? You are first up. Honoured? Don't mention it, the pleasure is all mine.



Both culture and religion pre-date constitutional laws, which in any event, only arose after statehood, or in a more primitive sense, communities. And laws only captured and provided a framework for already accepted cultural or religious notions.

To buttress the point, you said this;

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?

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?

The law exists to regulate our conduct and govern transactions between us. Not to say it can't be perverted or abused. It typically Prohibits, permits or promotes things for logical reason. But more on that later - if you care to answer the questions I've posted so far?

TV

I want to say please wipe that smug look off your face ,but for reasons I owe no one an explanation to, I won't. Hi, I didn't miss you, certainly didn't notice your absence but it's nice to see a familiar 'face', this place be drier than the Sahara.


Well, marriage predates recorded history, but yea, the law codified an existing cultural practice there.

The difference it makes, is that the law can handle situations in marriage better, when it involves two people.

freecocoa:
I want to say please wipe that smug look off your face ,but for reasons I owe no one an explanation to, I won't. Hi, I didn't miss you, certainly didn't notice your absence but it's nice to see a familiar 'face', this place be drier than the Sahara.

Smug is me . And you certainly help make me that way ! And like I said, I missed y'all.

freecocoa:
Well, marriage predates recorded history, but yea, the law codified an existing cultural practice there.

So you agree your whole premise is flawed !

freecocoa:
The difference it makes, is that the law can handle situations in marriage better, when it involves two people.

Next two questions;

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?

Come on Free, don't chase me away again with evasionary tactics and watery responses !


TV

cococandy:
If my daughter should end up in foster care and up for adoption, I'd choose a good gay couple over evil heterosexual ones any day.

You have the baby - a girl. Congrats 0! Very well done. But without further ado .

First, why make the false and misleading dichotomy? Would you differentiate between two "good couples"? And if you would, that makes you a phobe.

Secondly, a "gay couple" is by definition a bad parenting couple. The different attribute that opposite sex couples bring to raising a child cannot be matched by a same sex couple. Males and females bring unique but beautifully complimentary, styles, manner, attributes and input to child-rearing.

Thirdly, it has been estimated that up to 60% of a childs well-being is derived from the knowledge of and security in their family background and history. To willfully - by design - deny a child that is abuse. Heinous abuse.

Fourthly, to consider the so called rights - which are in in fact selfish feelings and desires - of two men over the rights, health and well-being of a child, to the extent that the child is essentially a commodity (isn't that de facto slavery?), cannot be the product of a sound ideology or right thinking.

Fifth, you have a daughter, and I can imagine how much you cherish and love her, desiring only the very best. Are you really going to say that you believe your husband raising her with another, non-related man, would be as good for her as raising her with you her birth mother? Or that other baby girls do not deserve what your daughter has?

Sixth, you repudiate the age-long traditions of your people, which is fine, if done with deep thought and much soul-searching, but to do so and replace it with this absurd liberal thinking?

Freecocoa came first, but I gave you more time . Now where is Mindfulness? I've acquired a new, bigger hose, just for her .


TV

Thank you.
And without further ado, I believe you've gone through the thread.I don't know where you get the impression that I'm interested in long unnecessary posts.

TV01:

You have the baby - a girl. Congrats 0! Very well done. But without further ado .

First, why man]ke the false and misleading dichotomy? Would you differentiate between two "good couples"? And if you would, that makes you a phobe.

Secondly, a "gay couple" is by definition a bad parenting couple. The different attribute that opposite sex couples bring to raising a child cannot be matched by a same sex couple. Males and females bring unique but beautifully complimentary, styles, manner, attributes and input to child-rearing.

Thirdly, it has been estimated that up to 60% of a childs well-being is derived from the knowledge of and security in their family background and history. To willfully - by design - deny a child that is abuse. Heinous abuse.

Fourthly, to consider the so called rights - which are in in fact selfish feelings and desires - of two men over the rights, health and well-being of a child, to the extent that the child is essentially a commodity (isn't that essentially slavery?), cannot be the product of a sound ideology or right thinking.

Fifth, you have a daughter, and I can imagine how much you cherish and love her, desiring only the very best. Are you really going to say that you believe your husband raising her with another, non-related man, would be as good for her as raising her with you her birth mother? Or that other baby girls do not deserve what your daughter has?

Sixth, you repudiate the age-long traditions of your people, which is fine, if done with deep thought and much soul-searching, but to do so and replace it with this absurd liberal thinking?

Freecocoa came first, but I gave you more time . Now where is Mindfulness? I've acquired a new, bigger hose, just for her .


TV
TV

crackhaus:

Lmao...

Let me get this straight, you believe that polygamy should be criminalized because there is cheating...and cheating should be a criminal offence?
Like seriously, this is the only reason you could come up with as to why polygamy should be criminalized..

Pray tell, who is being cheated?




Wow! Again I type WOW!

So in your opinion...a man has the right to fall in love with another man, and have sex with this other man, and marry this other man, and then raise a kid via surrogacy with this other man...all because it's his fundamental human right to do so.
But according to you, I don't have the same fundamental human right to marry more than one woman?

Please tell me you're starting to see the scales covering your eyes, as well as the confusion in supporting homosexuality but not polygamy.



Babe, this is a null point.
I don't think women in polygamous relationships got coerced into it by anyone, unless you're basing your submission on Islam and their culture.

To add to that, any woman above 18 that is legally old enough to marry is also old enough to become 2nd or 3rd wife - I don't know why being young is suddenly brought into play when we talking about polygamy.



There you go, now you're vibing.

She has a right to walk away, just as a man has the right to marry two or three wives if he wishes - it don't get anymore fairer than this.

No one is hurt, and no one is forced. Get it?




Lol, any woman who wants to marry more than one husband is free to...at most, people will talk and society can fvck itself.

But why aren't you women marrying two husbands yet?




Hehehehe...surely you must now see that you really don't know the definition of fundamental rights.

How can't I have the right to keep two women who have no problem with it, but a gay dude has the right to kiss, fvck, and marry another dude and then throw it in my face?

Freecocoa, are you scratching your head for answers yet?



Homosexuality is a harmful practise, gays shouldn't be allowed to endanger their health by consistently fvcking each other's arseholes...and they shouldn't endanger the mental sanity of others by throwing it in their faces. Don't you agree?



This is not true.

97% of all polygamous relationships happen with consenting participants. You must have been watching a lot of AfricanMagic Igbo to think girls are forced into becoming second/third wives.

The only exception is in the North, and such only happens with the uneducated rural dwellers.




Freecocoa, come on though...you really haven't tried to support your argument.
You seem to believe homosexuals have a fundamental human right to love whoever they want, but men who want to practise polygamy don't have the right to marry as many women as they want. LIKE SERIOUSLY?

When I say cheating, you thought I meant cheating as in people having sex behind their partners back? Crack please na, help me to help you.

No, you don't have that right if it is against the law where you come from and I have given reasons why polygamy is criminalised, so please, don't ask me again.

There is no scale covering my eye, you just can't compare right.

What you see or don't see, doesn't matter here, the fact remains that, no one under the right circumstances will want to share their husbands.

Being young is brought into play, because age as we all ought to know, is not just a number, an 18 years old girl is still naive.

Where's the sense in marrying two people? There's no sense in it, so women aren't doing it.

Really? I don't know the meaning of fundamental human right or you don't know what you are talking about?

You can't have that right because the law, after careful consideration and all, sees reason why you shouldn't, but you don't have any just reason why two men shouldn't marry.

Scratching my head for answers to questions posed by you? Nigga puleease. *face palm*

You have proof that gays endanger their lives just by being gay? There is no danger associated with hetro sex? Heck! Straight people don't do anal*? Your mental health is already in question if you think two men having sex is going to make you go crazy.

We shouldn't even be having this argument to start with.

[s]btw, stop writing long epistles for me biko,I don't get paid to debate on NL[/s]

cococandy:
Thank you.
And without further ado, I believe you've gone through the thread.I don't know where you get the impression that I'm interested in long unnecessary posts.

You are welcome.

And whilst you are also more than welcome to refute the claims in the post, it's not "for you". It's so that readers can see the sly deceit in what you wrote.

Seventh, in championing this ideology, would you be happy to have a son who identified as gay and indulged in a homosexual lifestyle? And be equally happy to do omugwo for a child who was half his male partners, and half some random woman' who was cut out of the childs life. Go on, I dare you, be bold to lay hold of the assertions you make.


TV

Good for you

TV01:

You are welcome.

And whilst you are also more than welcome to refute the claims in the post, it's not "for you". It's so that readers can see the sly deceit in what you wrote.

Seventh, in championing this ideology, would you be happy to have a son who identified as gay and indulged in a homosexual lifestyle? And be equally happy to do omugwo for a child who was half his male partners, and half some random woman' who was cut out of the childs life. Go on, I dare you, be bold to lay hold of the assertions you make.


TV

TV01:
Smug is me .And you certainly help make me that way! And like I said, I missed y'all.

So you agree your whole premise is flawed !

Next two questions;

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?

Come on Free, don't chase me away again with evasionary tactics and watery responses !


TV

It's your right to think whatever you want, I certainly won't try to take that away from you, so be glad you are king in your head and like I implied, I couldn't care less.

No I don't agree.

I'm supposed to tell you why the law involves itself in marriage? Pray tell, why does the law involve itself in anything?

The difference is that two is not the same as three.

I am not the law, therefore I cannot conclusively say why it's difficult for the law to handle matters on marriage, involving more than two persons but I have a theory. Let's just say, things can never be fair in an intimate relationship, comprising of more than two people.

TV01:

You have the baby - a girl. Congrats 0! Very well done. But without further ado .

First, why make the false and misleading dichotomy? Would you differentiate between two "good couples"? And if you would, that makes you a phobe.

Secondly, a "gay couple" is by definition a bad parenting couple. The different attribute that opposite sex couples bring to raising a child cannot be matched by a same sex couple. Males and females bring unique but beautifully complimentary, styles, manner, attributes and input to child-rearing.

Thirdly, it has been estimated that up to 60% of a childs well-being is derived from the knowledge of and security in their family background and history. To willfully - by design - deny a child that is abuse. Heinous abuse.

Fourthly, to consider the so called rights - which are in in fact selfish feelings and desires - of two men over the rights, health and well-being of a child, to the extent that the child is essentially a commodity (isn't that de facto slavery?), cannot be the product of a sound ideology or right thinking.

Fifth, you have a daughter, and I can imagine how much you cherish and love her, desiring only the very best. Are you really going to say that you believe your husband raising her with another, non-related man, would be as good for her as raising her with you her birth mother? Or that other baby girls do not deserve what your daughter has?

Sixth, you repudiate the age-long traditions of your people, which is fine, if done with deep thought and much soul-searching, but to do so and replace it with this absurd liberal thinking?

Freecocoa came first, but I gave you more time . Now where is Mindfulness? I've acquired a new, bigger hose, just for her .


TV

Dude, who are you? I need to buy you a bottle of beer ASAP!.

freecocoa:
It's your right to think whatever you want, I certainly won't try to take that away from you, so be glad you are king in your head and like I implied, I couldn't care less.

freecocoa:
No I don't agree.

Your agreement - or otherwise - is a mute point, I have demonstrated it. As have you in your response.

freecocoa:
I'm supposed to tell you why the law involves itself in marriage? Pray tell, why does the law involve itself in anything?

I spoke about promoting, permitting and proscribing in my first post. My prescience aside , you are lacking sharpness this evening. Or is it that you love to post long when you are engaging someone giving sub-standard answers .

The law promotes marriage - between a man and woman - because of it's benefits to society, consequently affording it certain rights and privileges.

freecocoa:
The difference is that two is not the same as three.

The basis you stated was adulthood and consent (you may have mentioned love?). What is materially different between two men wanting to form a relationship on that basis and 3 men likewise? And why should the 2 be recognised as marriage and not the 3? What is materially different? Especially as they meet your given criteria.

freecocoa:
I am not the law, therefore I cannot conclusively say why it's difficult for the law to handle matters on marriage, involving more than two persons but I have a theory. Let's just say, things can never be fair in an intimate relationship, comprising of more than two people.

You are not the law? Yet you stated categorcally what the law must be based on and how it must recognise same-sex relationships. You've now gone from declaratively asserting to theorising .

You said it was about adulthood, consent and perhaps love. If those are present does that not make it fair? Who are you - or the law - to decide what is fair about the consenting choices of adults.

Where is Mindfulness? I'm still hungry . And given Free' atrociously poor responses, I still will be if all our resident liberals show up.


TV

JoeBlocks:
Dude, who are you? I need to buy you a bottle of beer ASAP!.

I think I should be asking you that .

I am NL chief marriage advocate and foremost femnivore. You'll find a number of feminists parading with torn flesh and parts missing. I probably did that

And thanks for the offer, but I don't drink. I'm also a modern day Nazarite - or Pharisee to my enemies .

Saluté

TV

TV01 let's pick it up later, I have to be away now and I see you haven't lost the attitude, you might want to tone it down if we are going to continue, you can agree that it gets ugly when it shouldn't with such attitude, keep it classy, thank you.

TV01:

I think I should be asking you that .

I am NL chief marriage advocate and foremost femnivore. You'll find a number of feminists parading with torn flesh and parts missing. I probably did that

And thanks for the offer, but I don't drink. I'm also a modern day Nazarite - or Pharisee to my enemies .

Saluté

TV

Em, I was only being humorous. LOL.

freecocoa:
When I say cheating, you thought I meant cheating as in people having sex behind their partners back? Crack please na, help me to help you.

No, you don't have that right if it is against the law where you come from and I have given reasons why polygamy is criminalised, so please, don't ask me again.

There is no scale covering my eye, you just can't compare right.

What you see or don't see, doesn't matter here, the fact remains that, no one under the right circumstances will want to share their husbands.

Being young is brought into play, because age as we all ought to know, is not just a number, an 18 years old girl is still naive.

Where's the sense in marrying two people? There's no sense in it, so women aren't doing it.

Really? I don't know the meaning of fundamental human right or you don't know what you are talking about?

You can't have that right because the law, after careful consideration and all, sees reason why you shouldn't, but you don't have any just reason why two men shouldn't marry.

Scratching my head for answers to questions posed by you? Nigga puleease. *face palm*

You have proof that gays endanger their lives just by being gay? There is no danger associated with hetro sex? Heck! Straight people don't do anal*? Your mental health is already in question if you think two men having sex is going to make you go crazy.

We shouldn't even be having this argument to start with.

[s]btw, stop writing long epistles for me biko,I don't get paid to debate on NL[/s]

Lol, this chic though...
If you don't want me to typing long epistles, why did you go ahead typing this one... and how the hell am I supposed to respond to all of it without typing a lengthy epistle?

Okay you know what, you're right... you win - Homosexual men really do have the fundamental human right to love, marry, and raise kids with a fellow man...while polygamous men don't have any fundamental rights whatsoever to marry as many women as they want.
God bless the United States of America!
One would think that a country capable of putting a man on the moon would also be capable of knowing how fundamental human rights work, Lmao


And err I knew exactly what you meant by 'cheating' madam freecocoa, don't get ahead of yourself...need I remind you I'm a genius

freecocoa:
TV01 let's pick it up later, I have to be away now and I see you haven't lost the attitude, you might want to tone it down if we are going to continue, you can agree that it gets ugly when it shouldn't with such attitude, keep it classy, thank you.

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.

I still like you though... now throw some freecocoa ma way... Oh yeah...

freecocoa:

I am not the law, therefore I cannot conclusively say why it's difficult for the law to handle matters on marriage, involving more than two persons but I have a theory. Let's just say, things can never be fair in an intimate relationship, comprising of more than two people.

Lord have mercy...

The all-knowing all-liberal all-righteous law knows how to handle matters relating to two gay men raising a child, but suddenly knows nothing about how to handle a marriage where a man marries two women because it isn't fair.

Tell us Cocoa, is it fair to that innocent little child having to be raised by two daddies when all her friends in the school playground have one daddy and one mummy?

[size=26]IS IT FAIR?[/size]

lepasharon:


Yes o. The same way our indigenous gods wasn't cool to the whites and we all decided to embrace Christianity and islam

I accept that my sis,our forefathers made our religions scary...that's y foreign religions had/have a foot hold...who will wanna serve a god that strikes fear in them rather than the zeal to follow willingly....Africa is the only continent that foreign religions have a mainstay....

We shouldn't sit lazily waiting for the Whiteman to bring the next derivative or grant...

crackhaus:

Lord have mercy...

The all-knowing all-liberal all-righteous law knows how to handle matters relating to two gay men raising a child, but suddenly knows nothing about how to handle a marriage where a man marries two women because it isn't fair.

Tell us Cocoa, is it fair to that innocent little child having to be raised by two daddies when all her friends in the school playground have one daddy and one mummy?

[size=26]IS IT FAIR?[/size]

nice

TheDarknight:


Please even if a father defiles his own daughter, which by the way is an exception and rare occurrence, it's still a lesser evil compared to permanently skewing up the nature of an innocent girl who was denied of her natural home and nature.


You need to greet your sever aphasia and brain lesions

I don't believe its a lesser evil bro. What ain nice, aint nice! Especially when it has to do with a child.

Having a child brought up by two men is as dangerous as having a brought up by a paedophile.

That's the way it is. Cococandy assertion is as flawed as yours.

JoeBlocks:
I don't believe its a lesser evil bro. What ain nice, aint nice! Especially when it has to do with a child.

Having a child brought up by two men is as dangerous as having a brought up by a paedophile.

That's the way it is. Cococandy assertion is as flawed as yours.

You failed to grasp the message!!! No one is endorsing or giving a veild acquiescence to paedophilia or parental abuse.

My submission is, a child who was abused by the father, ---any many who had have gone on to be successful in marriage and raised families--- still stands a healthy chance of regaining their womanhood and nature as against a child who becomes a lesbian as a result of indoctrination and skewed sexual orientation of being raised by two faggøts.

That's the analysis, it's a comparison.


Prep up to Vote Mimzy o

crackhaus:

Lord have mercy...

The all-knowing all-liberal all-righteous law knows how to handle matters relating to two gay men raising a child, but suddenly knows nothing about how to handle a marriage where a man marries two women because it isn't fair.

Tell us Cocoa, is it fair to that innocent little child having to be raised by two daddies when all her friends in the school playground have one daddy and one mummy?

[size=26]IS IT FAIR?[/size]

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

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.

I still like you though... now throw some freecocoa ma way... Oh yeah...

Really? I ran? Like there's an actual price to be won, you take yourselves way too seriously.

If only I liked you back.

TV01:


Your agreement - or otherwise - is a mute point, I have demonstrated it. As have you in your response.

I spoke about promoting, permitting and proscribing in my first post. My prescience aside , you are lacking sharpness this evening. Or is it that you love to post long when you are engaging someone giving sub-standard answers .

The law promotes marriage - between a man and woman - because of it's benefits to society, consequently affording it certain rights and privileges.

The basis you stated was adulthood and consent (you may have mentioned love?). What is materially different between two men wanting to form a relationship on that basis and 3 men likewise? And why should the 2 be recognised as marriage and not the 3? What is materially different? Especially as they meet your given criteria.

You are not the law? Yet you stated categorcally what the law must be based on and how it must recognise same-sex relationships. You've now gone from declaratively asserting to theorising .

You said it was about adulthood, consent and perhaps love. If those are present does that not make it fair? Who are you - or the law - to decide what is fair about the consenting choices of adults.

Where is Mindfulness? I'm still hungry . And given Free' atrociously poor responses, I still will be if all our resident liberals show up.


TV

TV, I think you should go through my posts on this thread, replying this post will be me repeating what I've already said more than once, I honestly don't see any new question here.

freecocoa:
Really? I ran? Like there's an actual price to be won, you take yourselves way too seriously.

If only I liked you back.

My dear, I take things I find edifying seriously, such as you.

Never say never gurl.

TheDarknight:



You failed to grasp the message!!! No one is endorsing or giving a veild acquiescence to paedophilia or parental abuse.

My submission is, a child who was abused by the father, ---any many who had have gone on to be successful in marriage and raised families--- still stands a healthy chance of regaining their womanhood and nature as against a child who becomes a lesbian as a result of indoctrination and skewed sexual orientation of being raised by two faggøts.

That's the analysis, it's a comparison.


Prep up to Vote Mimzy o

Oh now I see and understand.

Hey! At the emboldened, Cut it out! I don't like it. Thanks.

JoeBlocks:
My dear, I take things I find edifying seriously, such as you.

Never say never gurl.

Na so.

freecocoa:
TV, I think you should go through my posts on this thread, replying this post will be me repeating what I've already said more than once, I honestly don't see any new question here.

...c'mon Free. Whatever I thought of 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

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.
I still like you though... now throw some freecocoa ma way... Oh yeah...

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

[quote author=TV01 post=45185987]
...c'mon Free. Whatever I thought of 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 [b]codify an existing cultural or religious custom?

Obviously from religion of traditional sources, never forget, before religion, there was tradition, and before modern law, there was religion and tradition, marriage itself predates modern law.

So I believe the law (modern law) did as the emboldened signify.

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?

Marriage isn't restricted to 2 people, only the whites man unfair law restricts it to two people. If you ask me, I'll say, (hypnotically) that the restriction to 2 has a lot to do with 'population' control.

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

Because, society from time in memorial, have never been able to mind their business. 'Control' is the watch word. A man who is told how he bleeps, whom he bleeps, whom he is allowed and not allowed to fuck_ is a marionette.

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?[/b]

Now I wouldn't know the extent to which the Western law works, but the african law have always been able to handle 3 consenting adult, that is, one man and two women. Uhuru Africa!!!!

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

I don't understand the emboldened. Kindly elucidate.

Miami11:
There are alot of gay couples taking care of baby girls, you need to travel out of your village to open your mind. Nothing wrong with this at all.

shuoo!
Because she doesnt support homosexuality, she is now a village person?

Mental slave!