redsun:

U are short of ideas as always.If u ever have a woman,i pity a woman that will put up with an as-s-hole like u,u exhume grumpiness,ignorance and miseries.

Short of ideas? No.

slowpoke, I just want you to prove you can read pictures. It is your opportunity to show the world that you initial reading of a picture was not the most daft after Idi Amin declared himself the King of Scotland.

Come on, show us your pix interpretation skills, dimwit.

SEFAGO:

tell who apart nigerian men ? I think most of them are frustrated and sad just like the women.

Its easy to tell the posts of my stalker. Its very hard for him not to include the words dimwit or slowpoke in his posts,  or to claim to use fact and logic. Also he tends to link out to the subjective posts of others as a form of argument- something that still baffles me today.

You mean you lol, I can find 50 people on NL who would cosign the latter.

Boy, stop hallucinating!

There was a time in the US when it was illegal for such public pronouncements, but in Malawi it's illegal to do so.

You are correct. Infact where I used to stay in the US, there used to be attacks on people who just looked gay lol and homophobia is rampant even in liberal campuses.

But the US and UK changed there sodomy laws because of activists and lawyers. If you are aware of the US law system, its very fluid- you could get away with murder lol. Each law is challenged in court, and usually depending on the argument of an intelligent lawyer.

These Human right organizations (from all over the world) including the UN argued continuously before the US changed it laws. These same Organizations with repentant countries are trying to convince Malawi to change there indecency laws. So what exactly is your point? That the US is hypocritical? Was Obama in power during these laws?

The problem is that people see countries as personification of ideologies, not aware that these countries have there own troubles. If you claim that these human right organizations are "western" you fail to see that they also continuously question the US government on every issue.

I get tired of all these confusing arguments. "Western" human right organizations such as the UN criticize the US government too:

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/apx_un_rights_experts_criticize_arizona_law_05112010

(AP) The Obama administration on Wednesday formally endorsed a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality, a measure that former President George W. Bush had refused to sign.

The move was the administration's latest in reversing Bush-era decisions that have been heavily criticized by human rights and other groups. The United States was the only western nation [/b]not to sign onto the declaration when it came up at the U.N. General Assembly in December.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/18/national/main4873350.shtml

So whats the point as I asked gamesmart? I told gamesmart- if polygamy can be proven to be a right, assuming so, it will be challenged in court. [b]FYI, the polygamy law in the US has not being directly challenged, and it was instituted in 1889.

, just like the way it's in the U.S military, declare your sexuality and get kicked out.

The DADT (dont ask, dont tell) was initiated during the Clinton administration. Clinton might have been ultraliberal but he is not s.t.u.pid. This law was supposedly repealed two days ago- I had a discussion with one of my friends- quite a brilliant fellow- but very homophobic. He argued convincingly on why gays should not be allowed to declare there sexuality in the military. I still agree with his argument, and I am skeptical about Obama's choice to repeal this law. One of the reasons is that the U.S. Military is significantly made of southern Americans from the bible-belt. Most are rabidly homophobic- they would refuse to share a room/food with a gay person. Imagine if an openly gay person was allowed to serve in the army- this would compromise his safety and even the national security of the US during wars.

Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because "it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Basically you have o explain why gay banging behind closed doors can affect both the individuals, non-engaged individuals and integrity of the state lol.

How is the polygamy argument useless and how does it correlate to guns and women?

1. It has nothing to do with the Malawi case, only dunces would use that argument. The Malawi case is not about marriage.
2. The polygamy in the US/UK were made illegal a long tym ago. It has not yet being challenged in the US. Once it was challenged in the UK, the UK allowed polygamy for people who got married outside the UK. Such legislation was easier for them because they dont need to worry about litigation or feel liable for foreign marriages. Now polygamy in the US would be another cup of tea. With the large population of feminist and independent women in that country such crap will not fly.
3. I equate it to gun laws because although federal gun laws were made in 1948. But they were later repealed in 2008, after a landmark courtcase. No courtcase has been focused on polygamy.  The reason why?

First of all the polygamy laws in the US were based on intuitive moral grounds as well as the claim: The US is a Christian nation . However, this could be challenged, and the law would have to be defended on other grounds


1. The polygamy law is not severely enforced in the US. Polygamy unions do occur as I mentioned earlier.
2. If it was, and brought to court, it will not hold water in my own opinion and those of others. I might be no lawyer, but I can spot a weak argument. Women rights organizations will shout fire and brimstone. It would take the feminist movement several years back. These women rights organizations are less in the UK lol, so that could have been why the polygamy law was amended.

Please read on arguments against polygamy and how he affects the autonomy of women. Do a simple google search. Then you can see why it cannot even be close to be legalized especially in a country where the women have lots of rights.

In Nigeria where a adult woman cannot easily file for alimony in an abusive relationship, imagine what would be happening in polygamous unions. How can someone say women can choose to be polygamous? Does this make sense? Do you think women want to share financial resources with several women? What about the children of polygamous unions? What will happen to them in the presence of a "divorce"?

Can anyone argue that polygamy is good? No. But still its the default arguments for those who have nothing to argue with.

"

^what are you posting.

Exactlt the same thing I posted on the other thread. Deleted since you answered it already

Sagamite:

Short of ideas? No.

slowpoke, I just want you to prove you can read pictures. It is your opportunity to show the world that you initial reading of a picture was not the most daft after Idi Amin declared himself the King of Scotland.

Come on, show us your pix interpretation skills, dimwit.

Boy, stop hallucinating!

It is quite plain to see that u are st-upid,even a child can deduce that.U need to be taught everything like a baby,especially manners and u are not assimilating.Ode.

redsun:

It is quite plain to see that u are st-upid,even a child can deduce that.U need to be taught everything like a baby,especially manners and u are not assimilating.Ode.

slowpoke, can you not read pictures? So you were foolish when you were reading daft things into a mere picture? Your head is fool of cement?

@ Sagamite & Redsun;

Enuf said already.

You guys don't need to outdo each other to prove who the fool is.

We Know already!!!

Sagamite:

slowpoke, can you not read pictures? So you were foolish when you were reading daft things into a mere picture? Your head is fool of cement?

How will u know the difference?U are inherently idiotic,not even being couched by Einstein can Behind u up.

U can only learn intuitively and urs is dead,u are a walking corpse.

Low IQ Polygamy argument people, check this out:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-454756.0.html

This is what you want legalized sebi. Nigerian women have not suffered enough, you want them to also suffer in America sebi.

Excerpt:

The Deji of Akure Land Oba Adepoju Adesina descended so low on sunday evening has he battared one of his wife openly in front of the state specialist hospital Akure,pouring a liquid substance suspected to be acid on her for challenging his [b]authority to marry [/b]Mrs Remi Abiola,wife of late chief M.K.O Abiola.

consenting adult argument my arse. Now we would expect another woman who hears this story to argue with her husband about a polygamous union while expectant of acid being poured on her.

Feminist theorist have strong arguments. Its just that there arguments fly past those with low intelligence and dismiss them as emotional because they are women.

I can bring 50,000 articles showing the effects of polygamy on women and in encouraging child abuse. I doubt my challengers can find one which show women marrying multiple men and engaging in violence against those men. Polygamy can never even reach the stage of "consenting adults" in our present social structure.

Polygamy is a moot argument. Only olodos pursue those path. Thats why Malawi would. i would expect more from Nigerians.

Bring it on, but no more silly arguments like bestiality or polygamy before I call sango on you all.

SEFAGO:

Low IQ Polygamy argument people, check this out:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-454756.0.html

This is what you want legalized sebi. Nigerian women have not suffered enough, you want them to also suffer in America sebi.

Excerpt:

consenting adult argument my arse. Now we would expect another woman who hears this story to argue with her husband about a polygamous union while expectant of acid being poured on her.

Feminist theorist have strong arguments. Its just that there arguments fly past those with low intelligence and dismiss them as emotional because they are women.

This is really as silly as someone bringing a case of a man trying to kill his wife to run off with his lover, and then claim it is evidence monogamy is harmful to women. Therefore monogamy should be banned.

Is there really no case of domestic abuse, like the story quoted, in monogamy? This argument is really embarassing coming from our leaders of tomorrow.

It has nothing to do with the Malawi case, only dunces would use that argument. The Malawi case is not about marriage.

This could be a precursor to marriage. The point is that their action is not consistent with the laws of Malawi.

2. The polygamy in the US/UK were made illegal a long tym ago. It has not yet being challenged in the US. Once it was challenged in the UK, the UK allowed polygamy for people who got married outside the UK. Such legislation was easier for them because they dont need to worry about litigation or feel liable for foreign marriages. Now polygamy in the US would be another cup of tea. With the large population of feminist and independent women in that country such crap will not fly.
3. I equate it to gun laws because although federal gun laws were made in 1948. But they were later repealed in 2008, after a landmark courtcase. No courtcase has been focused on polygamy. The reason why?

First of all the polygamy laws in the US were based on intuitive moral grounds as well as the claim: The US is a Christian nation . However, this could be challenged, and the law would have to be defended on other grounds

This argument is lopsided and mute because Malawi does not tout herself as Christian nation and laws are made based on values, cultures, principles, and norms of a country.

1. The polygamy law is not severely enforced in the US. Polygamy unions do occur as I mentioned earlier.
2. If it was, and brought to court, it will not hold water in my own opinion and those of others. I might be no lawyer, but I can spot a weak argument. Women rights organizations will shout fire and brimstone. It would take the feminist movement several years back. These women rights organizations are less in the UK lol, so that could have been why the polygamy law was amended.

Polygamy is outlawed in all the states in the U.S and it’s a federal crime, so make no mistakes about that. There are laws against bigamy as well. You have just butchered history here. A little of legal lesson. Common marriage law is practiced in the U.S and it was derived from English common law, which was derived from Roman and Canon laws. Does Roman Catholic have anything in common with Roman and Canon laws? Go figure.


The DADT (dont ask, dont tell) was initiated during the Clinton administration. Clinton might have been ultraliberal but he is not s.t.u.pid. This law was supposedly repealed two days ago- I had a discussion with one of my friends- quite a brilliant fellow- but very homophobic. He argued convincingly on why gays should not be allowed to declare there sexuality in the military. I still agree with his argument, and I am skeptical about Obama's choice to repeal this law. One of the reasons is that the U.S. Military is significantly made of southern Americans from the bible-belt. Most are rabidly homophobic- they would refuse to share a room/food with a gay person. Imagine if an openly gay person was allowed to serve in the army- this would compromise his safety and even the national security of the US during wars

You are making conjectures not based on fact. America is a conservative country by western standard, they believe in God more than other country in the Western Hemisphere. They go to church more than any country in the Western Hemisphere. Their conservatism revolves around social issues like gays in the military, gay marriage and abortion. You may not win a presidential election in the U.S  if you are strongly in favor of these social issues. So the executive arm controls the U.S Army not southern Americans. Politicians not want to alienate voters who are driven by social issues.

This law has not been repealed as you said, the US House of Reps voted to ban DADT.The Senate has not voted on it. The U.S has a bicameral system that would require a vote on both houses of Senate and Reps. It’s like saying that Bill Clinton was impeached without saying that he was impeached by the house representatives and acquitted by the senate, so he was not impeached.


Please read on arguments against polygamy and how he affects the autonomy of women. Do a simple google search. Then you can see why it cannot even be close to be legalized especially in a country where the women have lots of rights.

In Nigeria where a adult woman cannot easily file for alimony in an abusive relationship, imagine what would be happening in polygamous unions. How can someone say women can choose to be polygamous? Does this make sense? Do you think women want to share financial resources with several women? What about the children of polygamous unions? What will happen to them in the presence of a "divorce"?

Can anyone argue that polygamy is good? No. But still its the default arguments for those who have nothing to argue with.

Couldn’t the same argument be made that homosexuality does not do any good to the Malawian society?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-37902.96.html

Adconline all my arguments flew past your head. For example:

This argument is lopsided and mute because Malawi does not tout herself as Christian nation and laws are made based on values, cultures, principles, and norms of a country.

I was telling you why polygamy laws in the US were first initiated. This law has not being challenged but its premise can easily challenged, then another argument for keeping the polygamy laws in the US would have been brought forward. This does not have to do with Malawi, but why polygamy is illegal in the US.

Also my main concern is why everyone is pointing at laws in the West. Human Right Organizations criticize laws in the West including the UN. So you guys are just clutching to straws.

Polygamy is outlawed in all the states in the U.S and it’s a federal crime, so make no mistakes about that. There are laws against bigamy as well. You have just butchered history here. A little of legal lesson. Common marriage law is practiced in the U.S and it was derived from English common law, which was derived from Roman and Canon laws. Does Roman Catholic have anything in common with Roman and Canon laws? Go figure.

The first bolded- You got that straight out of wikipedia. But you should have read further. Second bolded-what does this mean?

I have never said polygamy is not illegal in the US. So what did I butcher? This is what I said:

1. The polygamy law is not severely enforced in the US. Polygamy unions do occur as I mentioned earlier.
2. If it was, and brought to court, it will not hold water in my own opinion and those of others. I might be no lawyer, but I can spot a weak argument. Women rights organizations will shout fire and brimstone. It would take the feminist movement several years back. These women rights organizations are less in the UK lol, so that could have been why the polygamy law was amended.

I said the law can be challenged but it will probably lose in court

Polygamy goes on in the US amongst religious communities, and the government is aware of this, but as long as it does not affect communities or there are no movement to institutionalize or legalize it everyone is Ok. Women will be pissed lol

You are making conjectures not based on fact. America is a conservative country by western standard, they believe in God more than other country in the Western Hemisphere. They go to church more than any country in the Western Hemisphere. Their conservatism revolves around social issues like gays in the military, gay marriage and abortion. You may not win a presidential election in the U.S  if you are strongly in favor of these social issues. So the executive arm controls the U.S Army not southern Americans. Politicians not want to alienate voters who are driven by social issues.

[

Are you sure I am the one making conjectures?

In my undergrad in the US, which was a religious school, and for every 100 people who went to church, only 5 believed in God (If you engaged them in a private discussion). Agreed this sample is biased because of the large number of intelligent people, but it highlights biases between polls and individual beliefs. If you poll them 60% would claim to believe in God. 0% would follow even one of the christian tenets closely.

You missed my point. When I mentioned southerners, I pointed to an argument that could be used to keep the DADT law. Its basic fact that US army is made largely from people in the south, especially those from the Bible belt. But the DADT law was made because of national security. It was not made because of any conservatism.

b]This law has not been repealed as you said[/b], the US House of Reps voted to ban DADT.The Senate has not voted on it. The U.S has a bicameral system that would require a vote on both houses of Senate and Reps. It’s like saying that Bill Clinton was impeached without saying that he was impeached by the house representatives and acquitted by the senate, so he was not impeached.

Stop selecting semantics that dont have to do with the argument. I made sure i included supposedly repealed, to avoid semantic arguments lol. Of course it would be obvious that it would take more than 2 days to repeal a law, but I lacked a better word. Anyways its in the process of being repealed lol

Basically adconline, the US made several laws based on perceived ideas of morality, values and religious sentiments in the past. However these laws are continually being challenged based on logic. Just like the laws in Malawi should.

Is that not what we are arguing about? You are just giving me the support I really dont need lol.

Couldn’t the same argument be made that homosexuality does not do any good to the Malawian society?

You are jumping logic points. Another thing I hate apart from agbalumo to pineapple arguments is the logic jump argument.

This is how I went:

Polygamy is never the ideal situation for women-therefore polygamy is bad- but people still want to claim polygamy should be legalized-why, is polygamy good?

Next step, the person pulls the last part and ignores the rest of what I said and says- can you claim homosexuality is good? Or can I claim picking my nose is good?

You should go like this:
Homosexuality is decadent to our society- then prove why its decadent to our society- and then suggest why the rights of homosexuals should not be ensured although they are moral beings- then argue- is there really any worth to the society by homosexuality?

I dont like being begged the wrong question. Please start with why homosexuality is bad.

I am sick of the polygamy argument, it has nothing to do with this situation or most of the situations worldwide. Gay banging is illegal in several places not to talk of gay marriage.

This is about gay banging, not about gay marriage. Can you guys see why everything you type is a waste of time?

The first bolded- You got that straight out of wikipedia. But you should have read further. Second bolded-what does this mean?[
I have never said polygamy is not illegal in the US. So what did I butcher? This is what I said:

I do not know about the source - wikipedia.This is a common knowledge and it  has been over debated on this forum. My point is that common marriage law is a product of ancient Roman and Canon laws and should not be the basis for marriage laws in every other country. So if we are saying that marriage is a human right, then polygamy and polyandry should be covered, but the same folks who make the same argument in the west will never allow polygamy and polyandry.
Defense of Marriage Act  (DOMA) signed into law by Bill Clinton  in 1996  clearly defines marriage as  a union between a man and a woman and it’s utra vires of any another laws enacted by the states with regard to marriage laws

To further illustrate, polygamy was proscribed by the Church of England during slavery era, but at the same time the Church held slaves in plantations in  the Caribbean- Simply put, you can go to hell if you are a polygamist, but you cannot go to hell if you are slave owner.
Since  argument polygamy is always based on Christian values, why cant homosexual unions be viewed with the moral prism?

Polygamy is never the ideal situation for women-therefore polygamy is bad- but people still want to claim polygamy should be legalized-why, is polygamy good?

Next step, the person pulls the last part and ignores the rest of what I said and says- can you claim homosexuality is good? Or can I claim picking my nose is good?

How did u reach that conclusion of what is ideal? Your premise on morality should not be the benchmark for measuring what's moral from another person's point of view. In the context of this discussion, Malawi is not a western nation and cannot be forced to conform to Eurocentric views of the world, just like the same the way the west cannot accept polygamy or polyandry.

This is really as silly as someone bringing a case of a man trying to kill his wife to run off with his lover, and then claim it is evidence monogamy is harmful to women. Therefore monogamy should be banned.

Is there really no case of domestic abuse, like the story quoted, in monogamy? This argument is really embarassing coming from our leaders of tomorrow.

Paradigm of the agbalumo to pineapple argument.

1. In your example, women can do the same. The power relationship is equal in this hypothetical situation.  Women can kill there husbands to run away from their lover. Further, no question of contracted consent is involved in your case. I gave you an example of where a woman refused to engage her husband who wanted to marry someone else. I was pointing to your claims on "why consenting adults cannot perform polygamy." Its quite simple- never is polygamy a consensus. Rarely do women have the chance to marry multiple men. This brings me to my second point:

2. Your example is not even a close parallel. Please bring me an example, where women marry multiple men, and abuse them as such. For every one you could find, I could find the opposite a million folds. Young girls contracted to polygamous men, the sufferings there children undergo because of polygamy. I would also bring severe legal problems with polygamy. But I doubt you could bring one case where a woman marries a lot of men, and punishes them.

Polygamy and homosexuality are not the same, except by some warped logic.

!!

My point is that common marriage law is a product of ancient Roman and Canon laws and should not be the basis for marriage laws in every other country. So if we are saying that marriage is a human right, then polygamy and polyandry should be covered, but the same folks who make the same argument in the west will never allow polygamy and polyandry.

1. Please wikipedia common marriage law. I think you are mixing some stuff up. common law marriage is an informal type of marriage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

2. I never said marriage is a human right?? Please pull that for me. Also marriage does not have to do with the Malawi couple again. I am not debating gay marriage, I am debating gay banging lol

like please make it clear before i engage you, which one are you talking about, before we go in circles?

tempest01:

God created Adam and eve , Not Adam and steve!!

Assuming God exists . . .

How did u reach that conclusion of what is ideal? Your premise on morality should not be the benchmark for measuring what's moral from another person's point of view. In the context of this discussion, Malawi is not a western nation and cannot be  forced to conform to Eurocentric views of the world, just like the same the way the west cannot accept polygamy or polyandry.

Kantian morality should be objective and not subjective. Objective based on reason, and not subjective based on emotions. Who told you that homosexuality is an eurocentric view? When did homosexuality become legal in the west that it is now an "eurocentric view? So equality is an "eurocentric view? Are you effing serious?

So if we are saying that marriage is a human right, then polygamy and polyandry should be covered, but the same folks who make the same argument in the west will never allow polygamy and polyandry. Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996 clearly defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and it’s utra vires of any another laws enacted by the states with regard to marriage laws

Weak. This is because polygamy could be argued to be subversive to women's rights. Gay marriage a parallel argument cannot be proposed. Now I am debating gay marriage lol, which I did not want to do.


The DOMA Act is federal law by the way. Its not a state law. Some states allow gay marriage. But the DOMA allows non-recognizing states to disregard these marriages within there jurisdiction.

UN Charter:

Article 30.

* Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Polygamy would lose on these grounds. It can be proven with reasonable doubt that polygamy is not the ideal situation for independent, financially capable women. Although polygamy is part of a religious right, just as it can be claimed sacrificing people is the right of a voodoo religion, it violates the rights of other autonomous individuals

SEFAGO:

Assuming God exists . . .

Well u can believe whatever u want to but believe me there is a supreme being who created all things, well if u believe u came from apes still good for you. There were apes millions of years ago why are they not still evolving abi them no like beta??

tempest01:

Well u can believe whatever u want to but believe me there is a[b] supreme being who created all things[/b], well if u believe u came from apes still good for you. There were apes millions of years ago why are they not still evolving abi them no like beta??

Yeah right.

Anyway, we diverged from a specific type of apes a long tym ago. This divergence took millions of years, and according to certain situations that cannot be easily reciprocated. Infact the apes we evolved from are a distinct phyla. You are like my stalker, asking questions that scientists would call outrightly st.up.id. Moreover, the molecular clock of an ape is about what 1x10-9 mutations in each replication cycle.

Anyways, evolution does occur but it can only be easily seen in organisms which muatate very quickly like bacteria. Complex organisms evolve very very slowly. infact I met a professor in molecular biophysics who uses forced evolution to study protein folding. Basically, he places an organism like E.coli bacteria in various extreme conditions, while watching the organism evolve quickly to withstand these conditions. From these he can watch various biological processes- really cool stuff.

Anyways off-topic

Kantian morality should be objective and not subjective. Objective based on reason, and not subjective based on emotions. Who told you that homosexuality is an eurocentric view? When did homosexuality become legal in the west that it is now an "eurocentric view? So equality is an "eurocentric view? Are you effing serious?
U dont get it,  polygamy or polyandry is viewed as an affront to western civilization. To contextualise this argument, ' eurocentric view' is held as a the truth and superior to every other argument simply becuase they hold it to be true. You are using it as a priori which forms the basis of your argument

Gamesmart:

This is really as silly as someone bringing a case of a man trying to kill his wife to run off with his lover, and then claim it is evidence monogamy is harmful to women. Therefore monogamy should be banned.

Is there really no case of domestic abuse, like the story quoted, in monogamy? This argument is really embarassing coming from our leaders of tomorrow.

adconline:

U dont get it,  polygamy or polyandry is viewed as an affront to western civilization. To contextualise this argument, ' eurocentric view' is held as a the truth and superior to every other argument simply becuase they hold it to be true. You are using it as a priori which forms the basis of your argument

Thank You.