^ Na she him do that thing with ?

ilugunboy:

Sharrraap dia. Don't you ever associate that city with bad behaviour.

guilty by association. you dey fear? abi u like back side and DIL's too?

SEFAGO:

If you mean they are run by white people which you collectively call the west then you are correct. if you mean they are funded by the US government or the UK government then you really are hilarious. These Human right agencies also criticize the west.

What do you really mean by the west- do you mean the government or you are referring to the people?

Remember Human Right Organizations are usually NGOs. I live in a place which probably has the largest number of human right organizations in the world so I would know that these guys sit down and criticize everything the US government does. I would not be surprised if there is one that asks for polygamy rights.

I believe I never defined the "West" as western government. Common sense would let anyone realise that Human Rights orgs are NGOs, and NGOs are not civil servants, hence I really do not know why you assumed anyone would describe them as Western governments.

So I guess you don't realise that since they are from the West, they will carry a prevailing Western ideology.

So lets agree that you misspoke when you said "People who criticize the discrimination against gays are not the "West", they are mainly human rights organizations". As the human rights orgs carry a Western ideology.

SEFAGO:

Polygamy affects autonomy a lot. Consider this- who are the people who usually practice polygamy in the US- Muslims and fundamentalist Mormons. An intelligent person well versed in standard philosophical theory like I am would catch on to the fact that Muslim women are socialized to engage in polygamy. How many women would really want to engage in polygamy if they were not pressurized by society or family? Is that really informed consent?

When people talk about consent especially when you want to present a court case they talk about infored consent- being aware of the consequences of what you are doing. Modern feminist theory would refute claims that women are authentically polygamous. Polygamy is usually one man and many women. Does this not seem wrong to you?


Further polygamy has adverse effects for the government especially welfare Governments like the UK. The Government does not want to be footing the bill for four wives of a Muslim man who does not have work.

www.californialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/98-1/Richards.pdf

http://hrbriefblog./2010/04/06/human-rights-group-challenges-uganda%E2%80%99s-polygamy-laws/


Human rights groups do challenge polygamy on its harmful grounds to women and as articulated in Article 30 of the Universal declaration of human rights that the US signs to, and including Nigeria, no right should supersede the well being of others. The freedom to practise religion does not entail that you can engage in acts that undermine the autonomy and informed consent of women.

If this is your argument about how polygamy cause limitations on the autonomy of women, then I am afraid I have to agree with Sagamite that you are failing your alma mater.

You claim arrogantly to be an intelligent person but yet are not aware Africans and other peoples have been practicing polygamy before Islam came? Jews practiced polygamy in the past. So did the Chinese.

Since when do governments start self-appointing to determine whether adults have informed consent? Is that philosophical theory that makes you intelligent? What happened to "two consenting adults"? So what stops a government from stopping gay marriage by claiming it is not informed consent since there is frequent injury of anal muscles? I hope you are not a lawyer as you will be thrown out of court with such shallow and inept arguments.

SEFAGO:

They do not recognize gay marriage under the consenting adult clause. You are 100% wrong on this. Arguments on gay marriage have no reference to consenting adults. You noticed I stopped because i was confused at what you were saying . . . the Malawi people did not get married you know, they "announced their engagement" which drew the eyes of the government to them, and put them in trouble. They had been committing the crime but had not yet being "discovered" until they announced it.

Consenting adult means the right to "intimacy" with each other, you are the one who introduced marriage into this, even Obasanjo caught that part and you cannot. The right for homosexuals to engage with each other is protected in the US but not in Nigeria. Gay marriage is now a different question.

Arguments for Gay marriage is a different cup of tea and is quite complex. An argument for gay marriage has to provide reasons why traditional marriages should include gay marriage. Its more complex in a christian nation like the US, or a very traditional and conservative nation like Nigeria or Malawi. I dont feel like trying today.

I am afraid I don't understand you write up here. This is what I asked you:

Gamesmart:

You appear to want to throw accusation of 'ignorance'.

OK, may I test yours?

Is it not the case that a lot of Western countries now have same intimacy marriage under the subterfuge - civil union? And those that do not yet, the prevailing argitation by the vocal liberals is for this to exist?

So why will they recognise gay marriage under the "consenting adults" rigmarole (i.e. where it is already in place), but yet have legislations that restrict polygamy using bigamy laws?

Do you know or are you ignorant to this?

Sorry if I am wasting your time, I note you used the adjective 'foreign'. Is that your justification for banning polygamy?

So why can't the UK be OK with only foreign same intimacy marriages? Why do they need a local same intimacy marriage system?

It appears you are not very good at demonstrating coherence or you are using underhand logic.

Basically, what grounds the proponents of homosexual marriage have to lecture Africa on "two consenting adults" are free to doas they wish, when they do not allow "two consenting adults" the freedom to marry in a polygamous set up?

I am afraid I don't understand you write up here. This is what I asked you:

LOL, seems you would never understand leave it as it is:

If this is your argument about how polygamy cause limitations on the autonomy of women, then I am afraid I have to agree with Sagamite that you are failing your alma mater.

You claim arrogantly to be an intelligent person but yet are not aware Africans and other peoples have been practicing polygamy before Islam came? Jews practiced polygamy in the past. So did the Chinese.

Since when do governments start self-appointing to determine whether adults have informed consent? Is that philosophical theory that makes you intelligent? What happened to "two consenting adults"? So what stops a government from stopping gay marriage by claiming it is not informed consent since there is frequent injury of anal muscles? I hope you are not a lawyer as you will be thrown out of court with such shallow and inept arguments.

So? Does that mean it is good? Because polygamy is was practiced in the past by the chinese/jews (china/israel have bans on polygamy and they are not the west) that serves as an argument for what?  You are not arguing anything lol. Whats your argument?

I have told you the statement "consenting adults" does not refer to marriage of sorts. It refers to sexual relations. If you cannot tell the difference sorry.

Polygamy affects the autonomy of women. Most women who engage in polygamy are socialized to do so. Period. Go and pick up a book on modern philosophy and autonomy to learn what you need to know why polygamy is bad, and rarely the ideal situation for an woman. If you deny that polygamy as preconceived has been a male construct then you really dont know much.

I am afraid I don't understand you write up here. This is what I asked you:

Your question does not make sense. Consenting adult is an argument for "gay intimacy" not "gay marriage" are you that daft? Let me hammer it again in your head until it penetrates it. Repeat it like a nursery rhyme:

"CONSENTING ADULT IS AN ARGUMENT FOR THE LEGALITY OF GAY S.E.XU.AL RELATIONS. , NOT GAY MARRIAGE. HENCE I CANNOT BRING FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS LIKE POLYGAMY (A TYPE OF MARRIAGE SYSTEM) INTO THIS DEBATE. MY PREMISE IS WRONG. EVEN MORESO I AM TOTALLY IGNORANT TO ASSUME THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS ACCEPTED IN ALL PARTS OF THE WEST AND IS NOT A HOTLY DEBATED TOPIC. I APOLOGIZE MY IQ IS BELOW THE AVERAGE THRESHOLD"

The Malawi people were not married.

OBJ is even one to talk! soo sleeping with your sons wife isnt an abomination?

SEFAGO:

LOL, seems you would never understand leave it as it is:

Please answer the questions.

SEFAGO:

So? Does that mean it is good? Because polygamy is was practiced in the past by the chinese/jews (china/israel have bans on polygamy and they are not the west) that serves as an argument for what?  You are not arguing anything lol. Whats your argument?

I have told you the statement "consenting adults" does not refer to marriage of sorts. It refers to sexual relations. If you cannot tell the difference sorry.

Polygamy affects the autonomy of women. Most women who engage in polygamy are socialized to do so. Period. Go and pick up a book on modern philosophy and autonomy to learn what you need to know why polygamy is bad, and rarely the ideal situation for an woman. If you deny that polygamy as preconceived has been a male construct then you really dont know much.

The question is very simple, why would a government of a free country, engage in interfering in the decision of "two consenting adults" under the pretext of informed consent?

Your argument is too weak!

Worse still when coming from the same person that postulated the assertion:

"Consenting adults should have a right to privacy in their homes. Its a fundamental human right."

Or was that not YOUR OWN statement?

SEFAGO:

Your question does not make sense. Consenting adult is an argument for "gay intimacy" not "gay marriage" are you that daft? Let me hammer it again in your head until it penetrates it. Repeat it like a nursery rhyme:

"CONSENTING ADULT IS AN ARGUMENT FOR THE LEGALITY OF GAY S.E.XU.AL RELATIONS. , NOT GAY MARRIAGE. HENCE I CANNOT BRING FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS LIKE POLYGAMY (A TYPE OF MARRIAGE SYSTEM) INTO THIS DEBATE. MY PREMISE IS WRONG. EVEN MORESO I AM TOTALLY IGNORANT TO ASSUME THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS ACCEPTED IN ALL PARTS OF THE WEST AND IS NOT A HOTLY DEBATED TOPIC. I APOLOGIZE MY IQ IS BELOW THE AVERAGE THRESHOLD"

The Malawi people were not married.

I am sorry but the reality is that, it is the same "consenting adult" arguments that was used to promote civil partnership?

If you don't know this, Mr intelligent, then I think we need to go back to the discussions about ignorance.

So I guess you don't realise that since they are from the West, they will carry a prevailing Western ideology.

So lets agree that you misspoke when you said "People who criticize the discrimination against gays are not the "West", they are mainly human rights organizations". As the human rights orgs carry a Western ideology.

I searched the internet, and I finally figured why y'all are adamant on polygamy. Its a rehashed argument but a poor one. Its like comparing oranges to agbalumo. It would be better if you were comparing gay marriage to polygamy.

Then be clear- so western ideology is wrong right? Western Ideology involves logically debate on issues which involve comparing oranges to oranges. Apples to apples. Not "Gay relations" to "polygamous marriage." Around 6 European countries allow gay marriages FYI. In America several states do not recognize gay marriage FYI. There are human right organizations in Africa, in China, in the Middle East- do all these carry western ideologies? Is freedom an exclusively western ideology? Or could it also be a Confucian one? I believe you could find arguments for freedom in African ideology if we actually have one or can construct one.

I ask again- what is your argument because you dont have one.

If you are referring to the Malawi case- you missed the point. They were arrested because they were gay. They engaged in "gay relations" not because they were married. But there is a right to consenting adults engaging in relations under the UN Human rights charter which Malawi signed to. This is therefore a violation of their basic human right. The right to privacy and the right to freedom from discrimination. No this does not have to do with bestiality/zoosexuality as some people claim. "Beasts" cannot make informed consents, and could lead to disease jumps which could threaten society.

SEFAGO:

I searched the internet, and I finally figured why y'all are adamant on polygamy. Its a rehashed argument but a poor one. Its like comparing oranges to agbalumo. It would be better if you were comparing gay marriage to polygamy.

Then be clear- so western ideology is wrong right? Western Ideology involves logically debate on issues which involve comparing oranges to oranges. Apples to apples. Not "Gay relations" to "polygamous marriage." Around 6 European countries allow gay marriages FYI. In America several states do not recognize gay marriage FYI. There are human right organizations in Africa, in China, in the Middle East- do all these carry western ideologies? Is freedom an exclusively western ideology? Or could it also be a Confucian one? I believe you could find arguments for freedom in African ideology if we actually have one or can construct one.

I ask again- what is your argument because you dont have one.

Are you saying you are against gay marriage?

It is actually quite simple, and I am surprised you don't get it despite claiming intelligence.

You said:

"Consenting adults should have a right to privacy in their homes. Its a fundamental human right."

And so I asked you:

"If it is a fundamental human right, so why is polygamy unlawful in the US even if consenting adults want to engage in it? Why is there a law to block it? Why would the law not recognise it but recognise civil unions?"

And you are still struggling to explain why a set of consenting adults (polygamists) are denied rights of do what they want to do that does not harm anyone under the law despite you misguided claim that it is a fundamental human right.

You are really not demonstrating the intelligence. You come across as someone that posted before thinking and is now struggling.

So do you agree now that acts just based on consent between adults is not a fundamental human right?

SEFAGO:

If you are referring to the Malawi case- you missed the point. They were arrested because they were gay. They engaged in "gay relations" not because they were married. But there is a right to consenting adults engaging in relations under the UN Human rights charter which Malawi signed to. This is therefore a violation of their basic human right. The right to privacy and the right to freedom from discrimination. No this does not have to do with bestiality/zoosexuality as some people claim. "Beasts" cannot make informed consents, and could lead to disease jumps which could threaten society.

The bolded also applies to polygamy, does it not?

The question is very simple, why would a government of a free country, engage in interfering in the decision of "two consenting adults" under the pretext of informed consent?

Your argument is too weak!

Worse still when coming from the same person that postulated the assertion:

"Consenting adults should have a right to privacy in their homes. Its a fundamental human right."

Or was that not YOUR OWN statement?

LOL, At least I have an argument you are just going roundabout. What exactly are your trying to say. Please articulate it clearly. When I spoke of consenting adults i was referring to intimacy not marriage. You are referring to marriage I guess since you are so adamant on polygamy.


Nna bros are you confused- my statement was on the legality of gay intimacy which was the reason the malawi people got imprisoned. I blame myself though for not catching your spurious logic that since polygamy is illegal in the US, then homo activity can be illegal in malawi.

Let me humor your daftness:

The US made polygamy illegal for various, and well presented reasons which was also focused on human rights protection. Go and read up on them. That is also why bestiality is illegal worldwide to protect people. Polygamy is illegal even in several places in Nigeria. It is bad for women especially. Gay marriage does have its demerits too and that's why it has not been fully legalized in most countries.

The question is very simple, why would a government of a free country, engage in interfering in the decision of "two consenting adults" under the pretext of informed consent?  

Stop being nitpicky. I used informed consent because usually laws are based after significant and superior debate. One of these arguments would be informed consent. It would not be the only reason the Government would ban polygamy. Euthanasia is also an action done by consenting individuals but it is illegal due to large debates by bio ethicist on the importance of human life.

SEFAGO:

LOL, At least I have an argument you are just going roundabout. What exactly are your trying to say. Please articulate it clearly. When I spoke of consenting adults i was referring to not marriage. You are referring to marriage I guess since you are so adamant on polygamy.

So you are against gay marriage?

SEFAGO:

Nna bros are you confused- my statement was on the legality of gay which was the reason the malawi people got imprisoned. I blame myself though for not catching your spurious logic that since polygamy is illegal in the US, then homo activity can be illegal in malawi.

Let me humor your daftness:

The US made polygamy illegal for various, and well presented reasons which was also focused on human rights protection. Go and read up on them. That is also why bestiality is illegal worldwide to protect people. Polygamy is illegal even in several places in Nigeria. It is bad for women especially. Gay marriage does have its demerits too and that's why it has not been fully legalized in most countries.

Please which parts of Nigeria is polygamy illegal?

Malawi has also ban homosexuality for moral protection. They feel it damages their society.

SEFAGO:

Stop being nitpicky. I used informed consent because usually laws are based after significant and superior debate. One of these arguments would be informed consent. It would not be the only reason the Government would ban polygamy. Euthanasia is also an action done by consenting individuals but it is illegal due to large debates by bio ethicist on the importance of human life.

So consenting adults is not a fundamental human rights then?

"Consenting adults should have a right to privacy in their homes. Its a fundamental human right."

I was talking about "GAY ACTIVITY" I quoted the article, and attacked obasanjo's assertion on homosexuality and comparing it to bestiality. I made no reference to marriage, YOU DID. YOU STARTED THIS INANE ARGUMENT ON POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE. MARRIAGE AND INTIMACY relations ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS LAST TIME I CHECKED.

When people talk of consent we talk about intimacy not consenting to shoot a friend who is dying from terminal cancer, not consenting to engage in multiple marriage. When people talk of "age of consent" we dont mean the age when you can say yes to anything , we mean the age to "say yes to intimacy."

I apologize- the mistake is mine, assuming everyone understands basic lingo

SEFAGO:

I was talking about "GAY ACTIVITY" I quoted the article, and attacked obasanjo's assertion on homosexuality and comparing it to bestiality. I made no reference to marriage, YOU DID. YOU STARTED THIS INANE ARGUMENT ON POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE. MARRIAGE AND INTIMACY relations ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS LAST TIME I CHECKED.

When people talk of consent we talk about intimacy not consenting to shoot a friend who is dying from terminal cancer, not consenting to engage in multiple marriage. When people talk of "age of consent" we dont mean the age when you can say yes to anything , we mean the age to "say yes to intimacy."

I apologize- the mistake is mine, assuming everyone understands basic lingo

So if you are trying to run from stating your position about gay marriage despite claiming intelligence and being  well versed in standard philosophical theory, let me relieve you.

So according to your statement:

"Consenting adults should have a right to privacy in their homes. Its a fundamental human right."

If it is a fundamental human right, then why is incest against the law? Why is it that in the most western countries, it is against the law to have sexual relationship with cousins?

Earlier you also said there is a diference between fundamental human rights and fundamental rights, please expantiate.

^ So that was what my statement was about- going back to my question:

What are you arguing?

So consenting adults is not a fundamental human rights then?

It is. As I used it in the context of this debate. Please reread what I said from the beginning you must not even know why the malawi people were arrested. I was discussing the malawi case.

Please which parts of Nigeria is polygamy illegal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Nigeria

It is not recognized under civil law. I will point out that i misspoke that it's illegal. You mix both of them up continuously so I am tempted to do so. But not to be sloppy.

Malawi has also ban homosexuality for moral protection. They feel it damages their society.

in what way? They "feel" or they have strong facts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights

protected by a legal system of a particular constitution.

Fundamental human right as declared by the UN charter in 194x

Incest laws are made for very obvious reasons. To protect children. Its as simple as that. if you examine Incest laws in the US, you would notice that some states do not prohibit incest for those over the "age of consent." Even more interesting is that incest is a "taboo law" introduced in the legal systems of most countries but has not being challenged. You must be aware that some countries have laws as old as 100 years which they do not change except some notable case leads to the change.

These laws were made before the fundamental human right charter were made. Incest laws can be challenged under the fundamental human rights charter to right to privacy, if two cousins want to marry, no one will stop them.

Incest is legal in Belgium, Brazil, Germany and a large number of "western nations" as long as you pass the age of consent and if you are not a direct line relative.

You are just clutching on straws. By the way why are you presenting like harmful examples to back up your claims: Polygamy, bestiality and incest are all harmful to society. Incest can cause in-breeding and disease, bestiality- one of the causes of AIDs, polygamy undermines women.

Whats up with homosexuality?

SEFAGO:

^ So that was what my statement was about- going back to my question:

What are you arguing?


It is. As I used it in the context of this debate. Please reread what I said from the beginning you must not even know why the malawi people were arrested. I was discussing the malawi case.

My argument is: prove that the right to privacy in their homes by consenting adults is a fundamental human right.

SEFAGO:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Nigeria

It is not recognized under civil law. I will point out that i misspoke that it's illegal. You mix both of them up continuously so I am tempted to do so. But not to be sloppy.

It is good you realise you misspoke. You appear to be someone that acts before they think. That is not a mark of an intelligent person.

SEFAGO:

in what way? They "feel" or they have strong facts?

The same way the West feel polygamy is damaging.

It is quite silly of you to come here and claim the restriction on women is Islamic world is mainly as a result of polygamy.

It is such a poor argument.

Furthermore, is it not left to an adult woman to decide if polygamy is for them?

By banning polygamy, is the West not restricting muslims rights as prescribed by the UN charter you provided?

So if you are trying to run from stating your position about gay marriage despite claiming intelligence and being  well versed in standard philosophical theory, let me relieve you.

What exactly are you trying to debate? I was discussing the Malawi people. If you want to discuss gay marriage, I dont have time because homo activity is illegal in Naija, not to leap into "gay marriage" that you are so eager to jump into.

But my stance varies. I would not like to discuss it with someone who does not know what a "fundamental human right" is. I like arguing with people who know what they are talking about  , sorry just not enough time. i vex easily when faced with the miseducated

You still haven't explained the difference between fundamental human rights and fundamental rights.

The same way the West feel polygamy is damaging.

It is quite silly of you to come here and claim the restriction on women is Islamic world is mainly as a result of polygamy.

It is such a poor argument.

Furthermore, is it not left to an adult woman to decide if polygamy is for them?

By banning polygamy, is the West not restricting muslims rights as prescribed by the UN charter you provided?

You are just going round and round. What does polygamy have to do with this discussion? I have told you ten thousand times it has nothing to do with my first assertion but you adamantly claim otherwise like a blockhead.

Stop comparing polygamy to anything. Its even painful that the arguments against polygamy are obvious. Moreover the polygamy laws in the US and UK were made before the UN Charter so yes, if that would give you some satisfaction, and stop asking irrelevant questions, it could be possible to challenge polygamy laws, but it would be very hard to do so from a legal point of view.

It is good you realise you misspoke. You appear to be someone that acts before they think. That is not a mark of an intelligent person.

Errm I think the problem is that YOU always mixed up "recognized" with the word "Illegal" and I was tempted to do so to buttress my argument.

Gamesmart:

You still haven't explained the difference between fundamental human rights and fundamental rights.

Ok you are daft- I am done. I cannot keep debating with a blockhead who cannot google to find the difference between the two terms.

I am going to play videogames, at least the computer characters are way smarter.

The American legal system, which regulates rights and responsibilities for married (and divorced) parties is premised upon a particular definition of marriage: that it is an institution between TWO people.

Laws would have to be completely re-written and re-interpreted to accommodate a new definition of marriage that permits plural unions. Expanding the definition of marriage to include plural ones may SEEM like a slight alteration, but in fact it is a radical one in the American legal system.

Allowing polygamy in American legislation affects not only who people marry and divorce, but also who can claim spousal benefits for health care, who can immigrate to the United States with family visas, and who can be granted custody in family courts, to name only some affected legislation. Accommodating plural marriages has far reaching implications in all of American society.

And it also causes problems of legal definition within the existing American legal structure. For example, suppose a woman is married to multiple men and has children, would each of her spouses who are not the child's biological father be considered the child's step-father and retain child-custody rights in the event of a divorce? Or let's say a man is married to more than one wife and wishes to divorce one, how would alimony be fairly decided in a family court if the husband has other wives at home to support?

Legal ramifications aside, polygamy is often rightfully criticized for its subservient treatment of women, since in the history of plural marriages, it has been males who have been able to take more than one spouse at a time. Plural marriages on the part of women have historically been less culturally or religiously accepted, because of historic double standards that have tried to control women's sexuality. Thus, women in plural marriages have historically been relegated to inferior roles within marriage, and have been financially and emotionally reliant on the male head of the household.

Allowing people to practice polygamy in the United States means potentially accepting a marriage practice that has disparaged women, and is unacceptable to many women who have struggled to make inroads in American society.

This should help you think for a bit and stop making silly analogies. Even same-sex marriage is not comparable to polygamy marriage. Polygamy is prohibited whether it is one man and multiple women, one man and multiple men, one man and multiple cats it does not concern me lol. And it is done for good courses.

You would not understand anyways when you grew up in a sexist culture.

SEFAGO:

Ok you are daft- I am done. I cannot keep debating with a blockhead who cannot google to find the difference between the two terms.

I am going to play videogames, at least the computer characters are way smarter.

I think it really says a lot about your intelligence when you can not explain your arguments.

There is no difference in the 2.

Polygamy is not the reason women are supressed in the muslim world.

Consenting adults having a right to privacy in their homes is not a fundamental human right.

You talk, then think (or rather run from defending your arguments by insulting or deviating from the point). It is a weakness and you surely are not intelligent as you think you are. Good night, enjoy your game.

Polygamy is not the reason women are supressed in the muslim world.

Never said that. I said "polygamy is demeaning to women"

Consenting adults having a right to privacy in their homes is not a fundamental human right.

It is lol, you just dont get it. Or choose not to. Everyone knows it is. Except if the activity could lead to death of the individual like sadomasochism.

I think it really says a lot about your intelligence when you can not explain your arguments.

LOL, ok- just learn how to use "Google"

@ Gamesmart

@ SEFAGO

Legal clarifications.

  1. Fundamental Human Rights do not originate from any international charter. As Gamesmart (and Fela Anikulapo Kuiti) stated - they are inherent.

  2. Consent between adults is essential to sexual relationships.

  3. Sexual relationships may however be subjected to reasonable limitations in terms of public affront only (e.g. Public Nudity, Public Copulation)

  5. Incest is not a criminal offence. R.ape/ Se.x with a minor is. It is not legally permisibble in Nigeria to marry a person within the bounds of affinity or consanguinity. 

  6. There is no criminal offence called polygamy. There is an offence called Bigamy.

Ride on with your debate.

Deep Sight:

@ Gamesmart

@ SEFAGO

Legal clarifications.

  1. Fundamental Human Rights do not originate from any international charter. As Gamesmart (and Fela Anikulapo Kuiti) stated - they are inherent.

  2. Consent between adults is essential to sexual relationships.

  3. Sexual relationships may however be subjected to reasonable limitations in terms of public affront only (e.g. Public Nudity, Public Copulation)

  5. Incest is not a criminal offence. R.ape/ Se.x with a minor is. It is not legally permisibble in Nigeria to marry a person within the bounds of  affinity or consanguinity. 

  6. There is no criminal offence called polygamy. There is an offence called Bigamy.

Ride on with your debate.
 

1. Fundamental human rights are inherent but still have to be explicitly stated and standardized. The Universal declaration of human rights served as a standardized form if the fundamental human rights of all individuals. I would point that consenting adults is more of a derived human right and would admit I might have made a wrong assertion that its intrinsically a fundamental human right
2. Yes
3. Yes, I think we were talking about privacy
4. where is 4 lol
5. Incest is criminal in some countries including some states in the US. It was initially a taboo law, but it could easily be challenged if a court. Just that no one has tried yet. However, i think the Lawrence Vs. Texas case that challenged sodomy laws in Texas and made homosexuality legal in that state, could be cited as a possible precedent. I dont think in Nigeria though incest is illegal which would make sense. Obasanjo would have been in prison lol.
6. There is a criminal offense in the US called polygamy. Polygamy is actually worse than bigamy lol. Bigamy is a misdemeanor while polygamy is a felony. The UK recognizes 'foreign" polygamous marriages-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_the_United_Kingdom

one in which someone performs a polygamous marriage outside the UK, then emigrates to the UK or something in that vein. That is what I meant when I was talking about foreign marriages.

This is quite in line with several african countries in which  polygamy is illegal or unrecognized but allowed under sharia jurisdictions such as Nigeria, Eritea. However several African countries like Benin, Ghana, Ethiopia and a host of other african countries. Even Somalia a country which has a large muslim contigent has restrictions on polygamy.

People like Gamestart who are adamant on the polygamy law are not bring anything unique to the table.They are just copying the retorts of the Malawi Government (where polygamy is perfectly legal with total disregard to its indirect contribution to the exploitation of women as well as the state) . The Malawi Government forgets that they are the one of the few only backward African country that  allow free polygamy. Most African countries have polygamy as illegal but do allow muslims engage in polygamy, typically after informing their wives that they would be  taking another wife and she agrees. This is what we call informed consent 

Even  claims of informed consent cannot easily be applied to the case of women in polygamous unions. You have to get the consent of two women that they would want to be involved in bigamous union. It would be impossible for any court to decide if a first wife is being coerced since she would be scared of refusing her husband from taking another wife. In a male dominated culture such as Africa or Islamic societies how common is it for women to tell there husbands not to take another wife?

Polygamy laws protect women and the autonomy of women. This is so obvious- if you expect that any sane woman will really want a polygamous marriage then you dont know women. They love to be the focus of attention, and would not do otherwise except there are big benefits.


Like always I have received a baseless argument and wasted time addressing it.

^^^ Hi. I was referring to the English Common Law which is the basis of Nigerian and Commonwealth Jurispruence.

^ I figured that you were talking about british common law.

thought almost all public things we see starts as private ideas and thoughts.

Law is common sense,fundamental or not.Man make laws and laws are dynamic in ever changing world,there are no limitations to what laws can be as long it compatible to human nature,bringing people together for common good,self fulfillment.

The heavens are open,u can reach god.

If i am the president of Malawi, i would be worried, the last person that OBJ supported died in an Ambulance outside his own house.

Obasanjo is just using this recent idiotic blunder to make up to the christian for the jesus and the election in nigeria blunder.His is trying to appease the christians at the expense of harmless gay people that goes about their businesses without prejudices like the christians and other fanatics do.It is a case of robbing peter to pay paul that he is known for,bloody wanka.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/10190653.stm

Malawi pardons jailed gay couple

Page last updated at 15:05 GMT, Saturday, 29 May 2010 16:05 UK

* E-mail this to a friend
* Printable version

Tiwonge Chimbalanga, right, and Steven Monjeza, middle, are led from court in Blantyre on 20 May 2010 Aid donors had put pressure on the government to free the pair

A gay couple jailed in Malawi after getting engaged have been pardoned by President Bingu Wa Mutharika.

Mr Mutharika, speaking as UN chief Ban Ki-moon visited his country, said he had ordered their immediate release.

Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga were given 14-year jail terms earlier this month after being convicted of gross indecency and unnatural acts.

The case has sparked international condemnation and a debate about homosexuality in the country.

Mr Ban hailed the president's decision as "courageous".

"This outdated penal code should be reformed wherever it may exist," he said.
'Culture of hate'

Correspondents say Malawi is a deeply conservative society where religious leaders equate same-sex liaisons with Satanism.
Malawi map

Mr Mutharika, who has in the past dismissed homosexuality as alien, said he had set them free on humanitarian grounds.

"These boys committed a crime against our culture, our religion and our laws," he said after meeting Mr Ban.

"However, as the head of state I hereby pardon them and therefore ask for their immediate release with no conditions."

Steven Monjeza, 26, and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, 20, were arrested in December 2009 after celebrating their engagement ahead of a wedding planned for 2010. They have been in custody ever since.

Gift Trapence, from the campaign group Centre for the Development of People, welcomed the decision.

"We're very happy and we praise the president for his maturity, but there is still a long way to go to end the culture of hate," he said.
Colonial laws

Aid donors and human rights groups have been putting pressure on his government to respect the rights of minority groups.

The UK government, Malawi's biggest donor, said it was dismayed by the sentencing, and the US labelled it a step backwards for human rights.

On Saturday, British popstar and Aids campaigner Sir Elton John wrote an open letter to Mr Mutharika in the UK's Guardian newspaper pleading for the release of the pair.

"Their trial and harsh sentencing will have a perilous effect on our continuing efforts to combat Aids in Malawi and potentially reverse the gains we have achieved," he said.

The two men were convicted under a law dating back to colonial rule by Britain.

Many of Britain's former colonies have similar laws outlawing homosexuality; India overturned its anti-homosexuality law last year.