₦airaland Forum

Kaa4:
He is starting a racial war he cannot finish.

JessicaRabbit:
Already ajar, just waiting for something interesting to peek in.



This isn't about ownership, my dear. It's about creating families, not replicating biology. It's about love, commitment, and forging deep bonds that transcend the limitations of DNA. And yes, while adopted children may have biological parents, their adoptive family is the one they choose, the one that nurtures them, and the one they build a future with. As for dependency, we're all interdependent. It's the very fabric of society!



It's cute watching you express unwavering commitment to tradition, even in the face of inconvenient facts, but let me enlighten you. Surrogacy and assisted reproduction challenge the rigid binary you cling to, rather than enforce it. They showcase the beautiful complexities of modern families, where love and commitment, not rigid gender roles, dictate what constitutes a family. It's not about men and women fulfilling their "biological destinies," but about creating loving homes for children, regardless of the path taken. And yes, I brought it up because it dismantles your narrow argument about inherent bias stemming from procreation. Perhaps, instead of fearing possible "glitches" in your worldview, embrace them as opportunities to expand your understanding. If you really want to have this conversation honestly, you must be willing to engage with facts and logic, not outdated biological determinism.



What do you know about evolution really? I'm afraid you've mistaken evolution for a cosmic game of hot potato. It's not a relay race where the baton must be passed on at all costs. Evolution is a complex dance of adaptation and environmental pressures, not a linear march towards ever-increasing numbers. Suggesting that my stance on social issues somehow disrupts this grand evolutionary ballet is, well, let's just say it wouldn't win any awards for scientific accuracy. Besides, focusing solely on biological continuity paints a rather uninspired picture of human existence. Don't we, as a species, strive for more than just perpetuating ourselves? We create art, push the boundaries of knowledge, and build cultures that transcend mere procreation. To suggest that these endeavors hold no evolutionary value is not only shortsighted but frankly, a little insulting to the ingenuity of humankind.



Attributing societal advancements solely to "male/females" erases the contributions of countless individuals who defy such rigid categorization. Intersex folks, non-binary individuals, and those existing outside the gender spectrum have all played vital roles in shaping the world we know today. You need to revisit your argument because it suffers from a distinct lack of nuance.



Pro-gay laws promote equality and basic human rights, something I would hope we can all agree is a fundamental good in any society. I suspect you'd be more comfortable in a bygone era, clutching your pearls and fainting at the sight of someone who doesn't conform to your narrow definition of normalcy. It's really unfortunate that your comments on this topic so far are rife with the same tired tropes used to marginalize countless groups throughout history, and if you are at all capable of honest introspection, you'd see how it speaks to your own baselines. I also find it hilarious how you boldly claim that LGBTQ+ individuals are incapable of contributing meaningfully to society. The LGBTQ+ community has consistently enriched the world with their talents and perspectives, from scientists to entrepreneurs and activists. Maybe you've simply chosen to ignore their contributions, blinded by your own prejudice.



Frankly, your obsession with procreation as the sole measure of societal value is tiresome, and based on redundant ideals. Adoption, surrogacy, and assisted reproductive technologies are just a few terms that reveal the thoughtlessness of your hypothetical.



Well, to be fair, I wouldn't expect someone clinging to the past to understand the value of progress.

JessicaRabbit:
Firstly, I'm not a man.

Secondly, equating my biological origins with inherent bias is a rather comical attempt at logical gymnastics, I must say. It's like claiming a paleontologist studying dinosaurs must secretly yearn to become a T-Rex. My existence as a product of heterosexual coupling doesn't automatically negate my ability to analyze societal issues objectively. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable if I donned a lab coat and delivered this lecture in a monotone to appease your desire for scientific detachment, devoid of any pesky human characteristics like, you know, independent thought? Oh, and there is nothing like inherent dependence on "hetro" [sic] reproduction. Have you ever heard of *gasp!*... adoption? Modern medicine has opened doors to surrogacy and assisted reproduction. And let's not forget, countless heterosexual couples choose not to have biological children at all. Does that somehow render their lives meaningless or dependent? Please, spare me the tired trope of equating procreation with the entirety of human existence. It's both reductive and frankly, reeks of a deep-seated fear of anything outside the narrow confines of your worldview. Regarding the supposed "privilege" of gay men. This statement is so laughably off-base that I'm almost tempted to humor it. If anything, history has shown us that the fight for LGBTQ+ rights has been a relentless struggle against prejudice and discrimination! To claim they're somehow privileged is not only insensitive but demonstrably false. In addition to biology textbooks, you might also be in dire need of history textbooks as well.

You seem to be arguing for blind conformity in the name of tradition, while simultaneously denying the very agency and individuality you claim to possess. It's a fascinating paradox, wouldn't you agree?

JessicaRabbit:
Correlation is not causation. You have only just cherry-picked exceptions to paint a misleading picture of the natural world.

It's true that most animals reproduce sexually, but focusing solely on the binary ignores the fascinating spectrum of biodiversity. You highlight hyenas, seahorses, and bonobos as "oddities," conveniently forgetting the numerous species exhibiting same-sex behavior, hermaphroditism, and alternative family structures e.g. clownfish with their gender-switching dominance hierarchies etc. Perhaps you should crack open a biology textbook beyond the "birds and the bees" chapter. Plus, anthropocentric. Nature doesn't operate on human-imposed value judgments. Every species has its own unique way of ensuring survival and procreation, and judging them based on our narrow understanding of marriage is simply illogical.

Moving on to human societies, claiming marriage has historically been predominantly between men and women ignores the vast cultural and historical diversity. From ancient Greece and Rome to various indigenous communities around the world, examples of same-sex unions, polyamory, and other non-traditional family structures existed and continue to exist. To claim these are mere exceptions is demonstrably false. Your argument about demographics and human progress being solely dependent on the "male-female binary" is not only simplistic but also offensive. Reducing human existence to mere procreation undermines the complexities of love, companionship, and societal evolution. Suggesting that same-sex couples somehow impede human progress is not just factually incorrect but also deeply prejudiced.

JessicaRabbit:
I'm sorry, but this is a nonsensical argument!

I have to wonder if you have taken any science classes before, because anyone with a base knowledge of science knows that it doesn't have definite opinions on marriage. It only studies the natural world. And trust me, the natural world is far more diverse and fascinating than your binary interpretation of "two halves." Some fish change genders, and even bonobos throw epic orgies!

Marriage exists in countless forms across cultures and history. It's about love, commitment, building a life together, not some predetermined puzzle with pre-assigned pieces. Two men, two women, or even a polyamorous octopus commune? Love is love, and who gets to defines its "meaning" besides ourselves? War and devastation are awful, no doubt. But suggesting same-sex marriage is some opportunistic plot to sabotage procreation is, frankly, insensitive and absurd. People's identities and desires aren't pawns in some demographic chess game. Besides, plenty of straight couples choose not to have children, and many same-sex couples adopt or use assisted reproductive technologies to build families, just like anyone else. Being progressive means moving forward, not clinging to outdated notions of societal control. Restricting rights based on sexual orientation smacks more of fear and prejudice than progress. Same-sex marriage laws aren't some sudden invention. They're the culmination of decades of struggle for equality, recognition, and basic human dignity. To call them "regressive" ignores the historical context and the countless individuals who fought for them.

Excluding people based on who they love, or using fear-mongering about population control, is not just wrong, it's downright unoriginal.

Nvestor02:
I don't expect anything better from the enemy of this country that want Tinubu to be borrowing money like previous government And pass the suffering to the next generation.

Tinubu is on the right track... The mumu only love to see failure, they will hate you when you analyze success for them.

Tinubu is going run his govts through internally generated revenue and pass prosperity to the next generation.

Tinubu should please increase the minimum wage and make everybody wake up to the new reality.

Double your hustle to survive, Cost of living in Nigeria is the lowest in West and southern Africa.

Walk around the African continent, check the price of foods there and compare it with how much you buy am for Nigeria, then you will realize that you guys had been lucky since all this while.


Werey people will claimed that shebi Nigeria have Natural resources, we should be feeding fat na.

But won't know that Human resources is far better than Natural resources. Most people are liability to this government.

I pray Tinubu declared more war against Insecurity too .. make citizens survive the cost of living themselves.

Omoawoke:
Lol, my guy… no Wahala bro! No mind my mouth sometimes, but I be nice guy offline o. We fit connect when I come Naija make we chop pepper soup and drink cold stout. No yawa

Omoawoke:
I no be madam, I be man like you. What I tell my fellow guys whey just dey enter Yankee for the first time is to drop Naija mentality for Naija especially when dealing with women. Many things you do as a guy in Nigeria and don’t even know can it’s nothing can put you in trouble without you knowing in western countries. And if the trouble is ready to deal with you, you go open mouth dey wonder think say na film you dey watch

Eunoiaa:
How is it not?

You made it one when you said women should be regulated. Like they are economic variable that should be subjected to the whims of men.

Condemn something if you want to condemn something, why are you bringing in womenfolk, that includes your mother and sisters and female relatives, into it?


Others that spoke against it because it wasn't right for a public space, they have two heads?


It is a fuçking gulf between saying something is wrong and proposing for a whole group of people to be regulated in a civilised society. Are you okay at all??

Next thing would be recommending that women are locked in cages as pets abi?

Omoawoke:
I really pity you online warriors


Hehehe, you people never see anything.

If you guys really plan to go far and wide across the world, you need to tame yourselves. Drop all these mentalities in Nigeria because una go enter serious one chance.

Imagine you working in a global firm, maybe in US, Uk or Canada and you make this kind of statement in a meeting or jokingly in the office, you can lose your career !! Know this and know peace and get sense

DeepSight:
Look, if you just said, people should be regulated as opposed to saying women should be regulated I may not have said anything to you.

Enskynelson:
For one to call another person of small brain implies that yours should be big or bigger. And I wonder what made your choose to begin your points with that if you were reasonable and sensible enough. Courtesy demands that no matter how it sounded in your ear, you present your point without all that especially when it doesn't look like the post was insultive in any sense.
I work in a Federal University in Nigeria and I can tell you with all understanding that the man lost his life on a job that can barely feed himself and his family (especially in the current Nigerian situation). I don't need the news to know that. No matter what his passion maybe, does that warantee anyone being under-paid? As a technologist who just gets employed into the University, take home pay is just about 100k. After 3-4 years, he can only get additional 7-8k added to his pay. For many years, many persons were denied of their hazard allowances for years.
I have reasons for what I said cos I am in the system. What about you, what promted you to disclaim what I said in the manner you did? Because till now, I can't see any point in all u have been trying to say.

DeepSight:
Why must you know my view first. What I mentioned to you has nothing to do with my view. You prescribed regulation for women, but none for men. That is sexist. That is gender apartheid.