₦airaland Forum

you seem to miss the point of what i'm saying. I'm not sure if this is deliberate.

I understand what you are saying, I'm not exactly for or against bride price, I was giving you the reasons behind it. If you want to talk about whether or not ppl should continue paying it. . that is something else. This topic seems to be assuming that it is going to be paid not questioning the practice.

why?

prettyH:
@allonym

says who

Says you:

prettyH:
abi now. see o. d question answers itself..another mans wife...someone elses property. Adultery.. please

This seems random, who are you addressing?:

michelin89:
i'll like to see when you will your wife with another man...i guess you won't say: Honey, i see you have a new friend. what is his name? oh i'm really sorry for disturbing you. please go on with what you were doing before i came in.
you'd rather say: What the f^k is going on here? who is this man? hey you if you don't leave right now, i'll skin you alive.

The bride's family is loosing a daughter, not really gaining a son. The new family will have the groom's surname, and will be part of the grooms family. When you meet them in a new city, if you'd never met the girl before, all you would know is that they are mr and mrs X. . Not the joined family of mr. x and mrs y. This is why a "groom price" is not paid.

Like i said, it is a ritual token, and i'm pretty sure, that unless the groom was very well off, his parents or relatives were the one paying the price, not him.

easy, I am a christian and I don't goto church.

Churchs cannot control who becomes a christian and who doesn't. You don't need a church to be a christian, you need christians to have a church.

yes. . I'm sure that all kids whose parents were around them 24/7 never did anything wrong. Its kind of hard to when you're parents are everywhere you are making sure you do whatever they tell you.

For people who are not God and cannot be with their kids every second of the day, other tactics are necessary.

Here is another situation using similar wording:

Me: Son, why did you stab the cat to death.
Son: I wanted to give the cat more breathing holes.
Me: That's not the way to give an animal breathing holes- in fact, cats don't need more because God made them with what they needed. See, the cat is dying Cry. You should have asked me first!
Son: (already crying, because he's an angel) Daddy I'm sorry.
Me: Ok, go and apologize to your mom and let's go and bury the cat.
<after burial>
Me: Son, I hope you've learnt a lesson today: it's good to be careful when you want to do something new. Ask questions from elders or those who have more experience so you don't make big mistakes that will make everyone unhappy. Your mother and I have agreed that for the next week you'll do so-and-so chore in order to pay us back for the dead cat.

There is no way I would respond that way to my son killing a cat in that manner. There are things done in fun w/o knowing the consequences, and there are things which are not done that way. Kids are not ignorant automatons

i suppose that baptist christians or pentecostal christians are not really christian then

Z4M4eva:
Personal Message or no personal message, I don't care, what i think is what i've said.

I'm glad you're feeling a little better about this

. . ahh. . i'm too lazy but here

I meant adoption, not abortion. . .I guess that was the typo of which you spoke.

You seem to be attempting to make the argument that because homosexual couples are biologically not able to have children, they cannot expect to want children. That does not make any sense.

Poor people cannot afford to buy good stuff, that does not stop them from wanting it. Do you understand now.

What is the fundamental difference between a poor person and a rich person, only one thing - money

What is the fundamental different between a hetero couple and a homosexual couple, only one thing - sexual orientation.

Everything else is the same. Understand now (at least my argument?)

I totally disagree with your last statement. Homosexuals are different from heterosexuals in only one regard. While you may think this is a fallacy, you have not shown this to be the case. I suppose I have not shown my side to be the case either. . .but my argument is simple, homosexuals are people. So far, unless there is some conspiracy, the only difference that I am aware of is their sexual orientation. If you can show, indicate, or in some way enlighten me to another difference, then I could see possible justification for your statement.

i would assume you got told off in a personal message. Therefore, wouldn't it be safe to assume that other people got similar messages?

Publicly on the forum, you may not get chastised, privately is another matter.

freedom to do what exactly?

prettyH:
i beg to disagree to an extent.I don't always have a boyfriend but i get lonely because you're nt able to call up someone and tell them how your day went. Or even your ups and downs. Some1 who'll understand and nt judge u. Gosh, honestly at times being single makes u lonely especially if all your friends r nt. But men d freedom u av is immeasurable.

ocho:
i'm with u on the freedom issue

well, though its is generally not liked, cursing is not exactly against the forum rules. . . so, we can't just ban or censor people for that

omon:
If you all claim that being born gay is natural, how come many who manage to realise themselves and become christians are suddenly attracted to the opposite sex? I have seen it on a reality programme 'Cheaters' and so many other programme. Soon, according to western standards, incest and those involved with child pornography will soon be a natural thing. There are already nudists in the street of london, I guess that is natural too? The western world accepts it does not mean it is right!

Fornication and adultery are not seen as sins anymore. It is a demonic force sweeping across the earth...

for those who claim that christians are good, how come so many priests manage to realize themselves and rape little boys? I have seen it on a reality program called PRIME TIME NEWS. Soon, according to world standards, pedophillia and those involved with raping little boys will soon be a natural things. There are already child rapists in the churches of today. I guess that is natural too? The world accepts it does not mean it is right!

lol. . and the producers are being divas too by banning them. The two need to become more serious. First, establish a well respected industry, then when people start to act up, you can actually have the credibility, name to uphold, etc to ban them. At this point, squabbles between the two groups don't benefit either side.

his plight is easy to understand, read the title

two people in love, the past stops one. The one being stopped is obviously him. he goes on in his post to mention he only has met the girl's kids, not her family, friends, or anyone else who would know more about her. Is there something here that only super super nigerians can see that I'm missing. The solution is obvious to me, the man should open is mouth. I cannot understand how he can claim to have learned so much from three bad marriages or not want to be hurt, and yet he refuses to find out about something like this. What is the point of his question then. Its not like we are mind readers and can tell him what he wants to know. We are not going to go out and investigate this woman for him. If he will not take the initiative to ask the question himself, then there is nothing we can really do.


Something must really be wrong with me this week. . i've had to modify so may harsh posts. . .

wow, you blue shirts must really work hard for you Seun for you to be so proud! Tell me, did it win first place?

yeah . . i'm not really one of the L O L types. . .

Haha.

this is one of the most amazing things to me about christian folk.

That is all i will say about that topic

. . .i cannot resist. . .its e pluribus unum. One out of many - of the things which amaze me about christian folk. . .

ok. . enough about that. . .

So, ppl, if its is not obvious to you now, the catholic church, which predates almost all other currently existing christian entities practiced speaking in tongues WAAAAY before those christian entities were a twinkle in martin luther's eyes.

That is not what you asked before, maybe you have changed your mind.

You asked and let me quote you:

CimonJorr:
There is this question which I guess no one has raised yet.. curious as it is...

"Why would homosexuals want to raise children?? "

It's not like they can naturally pro-create to produce them anyway...

Couples (and here I'm referring to hetero-sexual couples, to prevent any arguments) which are unable to have children often sought remedies to their problem, and as a last resort, opted for adoption.. But usually after they had tried to produce children on their own without success...

Obviously, for homosexual "couples", this can not be the case.. so why the push for children in the first instance??.. If it's a case of companionship, I guess that has been solved already..

One can not 'eat your cake' and have it..

Now, according yo you, again, in the same quote, you say that couples for some reason "want" to have children and when they cannot do so, they choose to adopt.

Now, without twisting any words, I said that that same idea applies to homosexual couples as well. The only difference, is they know ahead of time, that they cannot reproduce.

It seems you are confused about this. . let me enlighten you - a heterosexual couple knows that both the male and female are sterile, therefore, they cannot produce children. Same situation as a homosexual couple, both sets know AHEAD OF TIME, that children from their own loins is NOT in their future.

Now, you try to make the argument that if abortion didn't exist, homosexuals could not have children. . . well, if abortion did not exist, some heterosexual couples could not have children either.

So if your point is. . if structures in society did not exist for couples without the means to produce their own children to gain children, then they would not have it, and thus homosexual couples cannot expect to have children in such a society, then YES, you are right. . .and some heterosexual couples would also not be able to expect to have children.

However, we don't live in that society, therefore homosexual couples can expect to have the same opportunity as heterosexual couple to attain progeny even in the absence of having the ability to produce them.

So, it is perfectly reasonable for them to expect to adopt kids.

Oh, and so you are not confused, EVEN if adoption did not exist in our society, while a homosexual couple (or a hetero couple with some reproduction dysfunction) could not EXPECT to be able to have children, it still does not mean they would not want to have one.

According to you, you are not making any statements that homosexuals are inhuman or something, so what makes it so hard for you to believe that they would want similar things as heterosexual couples. Some people seem to think that if you're homosexual, you are wildly different from everyone else. . . (I'm making a general statement here though at this time, it would seem to include you CimonJorr)

I want to publicly apologize to WesleyanA for the way I've responded to her in this thread. I've clearly overreacted here.

actually, in this thread, a lot. I'm starting to feel bad now. .

I guess I've been a little . . .well not a little. . harsh lately . . . I'll try to tone it down. . . I've got a break coming up so that should help

i'd prefer not to answer. . . just like i don't reveal whether i'm male or female, hetero or homo. . .though I have revealed I was a christian. . but that was a special case. .

I tend to post in topics to challenge traditional views that many people hold which I feel is wrong. I think if people could pigeonhole me into a certain box, they'd find it easier to explain away my points as - oh thats just because he/she is such and such or from such a place. I'd rather my views be considered as purely intellectual, logical, scientific without any possibility of bias.

That is how I strive to respond to posts, and that is how I want my responses to be interpreted.

women are property?