prettyboi1989: Ya'll dont wana keep the founder of this thread in the loop anymore, una no send anybody. is alright , i deliberately dint want to comment here since October or so. Y'all will be hearing from me as soon as m done watching all the raw episodes i have missed. in the mean time y'all should anticipate this match, i happen to bump into sonya deville's tweet in 2015 about Ronda so i made a pic collage for them. Anyone anticipating a match between these two? i am
pu7pl3: Aj is a workaholic and he will definitely retain and face nakamura at WM...its better to win the championship many times than hold it for long cos history will only count the number of time you held it like ric flair and cena...nobody is counting cm punk
True, I feel for AJ It's better for him to lose and retain again.
I don't like the way wwe is using randy, I just feel so bad. Lol, just seeing him used anyhow is weird, but I guess Bobby roodes should be as strong as him, but at least he is running for united states championship
Kevin belle owens, the man who cannot fight alone. Look, it's been a long time since I called him belle Owens
Wwe still boring UA with this riot squad nonsense but someone how they managed to beat someone The lush is so much and now they want to push them for Charlotte's championship,
I like the the friendship between the 2 women, I wonder how it will end, lol,
Bludgeon brothers, lol I wan them to face people who can actually give them a good match,
New day vs usos at first lane, will be interesting to watch
pu7pl3: Goddamnit seth freaking rollins was awesome last night...he lasted for over one hour and pinned both reigns and cena clean ...more of this wwe
Hi ya I haven't watched anything since then, I'm sorry I think I missed up to 3 weeks of both raw and smackdown
Lol, just watching and aj has to defend his title in a five way match at fastlane? I feel like he is always wrestling for this title. I wish they would give him time to rest. Who do you think will win? Do you think AJ will retain?
Why is it that it seems like the number of times you held the title is more prestigious than how long you can hold the title?
simsay: You need to understand that as there are different cultures and traditions, so do their interpretations to relationships and marriages differ. Some cultural practices of marriage is wrong like marriage conducted between children as we have in India or marriage to minors as we have in some religion. For such people, the world is putting them under intense pressure to change their culture. There is nothing as such as static culture. The Africa we have today is not the same as the precolonial era, so as the interpretation to relashionships Moslem men are allowed to marry as many as 4women, if a woman decides to live with that, that is her choice and everyone should be happy for her. In christianity, it's one man and one wife, the standard will never change. If you are a Christian man, you must never haveconcubines or 2 wives, that is the standard. Of course there are Christian men who cheat and there are lots of men who remain faithful to their wives, and [b] [color=Red]yes, women are allowed to demand faithfulness from their men. A man whose his wife cheat on has the choice to stay in the marriage or leave. A woman who makes the same choice should be have her choice respected. Not everyone can deal with a cheating partner and must know that.
Now, there is nothing as such as cheating is in a man's DNA. The truth is cheating is in everyone's DNA. Everyone has the capability to cheat. There are women who also cheat on faithful men. The difference between a cheating partner and a non cheating partner is a word and that word is selfcontrol. Now, more girls than boys are taught self control from childhood, such that it becomes part of them more than their male counterparts. Things are so bad with our men such that we hear cases of men sexually harassing their own children, househelp, even babies
We all need to step back a little and train our men how to have self control instead of trying to configure women to accepting a cheating husband.
We now leave in a difficult world were baby girls can't be left in the hand of their fathers, uncle,brothers, friends. Don't u see its a serous problem.
We need teach our men, women inclusive of how to respect other people's privacy more importantly self control. The lack of self control as I said earlier is what leads to cheating and don't forget, everyone is capable of cheating.
And please don't bring up, this is Africa rhymes. There is no static culture, if we teach our children, teenagers and even adults right, we will have a better future.[/b][/color]
[color=Blue]This post is really really long.[/color] but you just finished work. This Is perfect. Nice one.
Iqguy: The basic conclusion of the argument of “against nature”—as thrown around by Anti-LGBTQIA+ proponents is that non-heterosexual orientations are not natural. Allow me to reiterate that this argument is however fallacious and built up simply to support discrimination against sexual minorities. But before I start discounting this fallacy, I will briefly discuss the term Natural. Natural is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: 1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind , 2. in accordance with the nature of or circumstances surrounding someone or something. Dictionary.com defines Natural as: 1. existing or formed by nature 2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature. It is based on the above definitions and many others which are beyond the length of this write-up that the argument that other minority sexual orientations are unnatural sits: That queer sexual orientations are not found in nature, not formed by nature, and, ultimately, are not part and parcel of the make-up of individuals who identify as queer. One of the basic tenets of the “against nature” argument is that homosexuality cannot be natural because the basic requirement of nature from sexuality is procreation; so nature could not have created homosexuals because they cannot procreate. A question I once heard asked at a conference which goes thus: “How can you say ‘contrary’ sexual orientations are natural when nature requires heterosexual orientation to prevent humans from going extinct?” exemplifies this belief. First, there is no such thing as a ‘contrary sexual orientation’ -as evidenced by the absence of this term in any modern scientific journal on the topic of sexual orientation. Indeed there is a common sexual orientation and other less common but equally valid ones. The phrase ‘contrary sexual orientation’ is totally heteronormative—assuming that everyone is/was born heterosexual and everything is about heterosexuality—and connotes a Heterosexual versus Non-Heterosexual war of orientations—the one striving to end the other. This is not so. Also, Species do not ONLY need to procreate to ensure their survival but must function as a community to transfer genes that are overall favourable onto the next generation. That is procreation is not the ONLY contribution that members of a species have to make to prevent the extinction of the species. This is explained by the concepts of the gene-centered theory of evolution, and the “Helper in the Nest” hypothesis. These theories hold that the genetic contribution to homosexuality has been preserved through time because this helps support other related genes that favour propagation of the human species. My point here is that there is no need for nature to procreate numerous offsprings without favouring them for survival, they will just die off and this is evidenced by the fact that Neanderthal man and other older fossil records of man showed smaller skulls (corresponding to smaller brain size) and were less intelligent. A study done by Andrea Camperio Ciani and Elena Pellizzari in 2012, [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051088.] found that non-parental females (aunts and grandmothers) in the maternal lines of homosexual males were more fertile than those of heterosexual males, suggesting that the genetic contribution to fertility in women was being carried along by nature with male homosexuality. This study agreed with other similar studies (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/16/us/report-suggests-homosexuality-is-linked-to-genes.html?pagewanted=all, http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/study-gay-brothers-may-confirm-x-chromosome-link-homosexuality, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study) which found out homosexual males were more related on the maternal side and also found similar genetic regions in about 97% of gay men in a locus on the X chromosome(Xq28) which was usually contributed by the mother for genotypic males. The research helps throw some light on the fact that female fertility and homosexual tendencies are relevant to preventing extinction as a pair. It is evident therefore that nature has persistently preserved both heterosexual and other sexual orientations through generations because NATURE REQUIRES HETEROSEXUAL, HOMOSEXUAL, BISEXUAL and OTHER SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS TO PREVENT HUMANS FROM GOING EXTINCT. This is because other orientations obviously contribute to the propagation of the Homo sapiens species and no way results in its extinction because they exist in balance with heterosexual orientation which can still procreate. This, however, doesn’t even mean that people of other sexual orientations are infertile and cannot reproduce. In the US 37% of LGBT people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. If we know anything about nature and science, it is that history has shown how much of nature science is still yet to uncover. So I can imagine there are many more unknown contributions of the diverse minority sexual orientations in nature that science is even yet to explore. Another basis of this argument comes from the direction of the anatomical forms of male and female animal species. It states that animals are usually heterosexual male and female in nature and there are no Homosexual or Bisexual animals. Examples of this part of the argument include statements like: “Have you seen two male dogs having sex before?” “Even animals have male and female, and its male lion mating with female lion, not male and male or female and female.” “God made man with penis and woman with vagina for a reason.” This argument has long been refuted by nature itself which has offered more than enough examples of Homosexual and Bisexual behaviours in the animal kingdom. Nature has also fortunately blessed our diverse world with intersex members of species (regarded in certain parlances as haemaphrodites) who have natural anatomical sexual organs conforming to neither Male nor Female strictly (ambiguous Instruments) or having both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animalshttp://community.lovenature.com/wild/why-do-some-animals-exhibit-homosexual-behaviour When the Anti-LGBTQIA+ proponents see these scientific facts stacked against them, they say, ‘Just because animals do it doesn’t mean we should adopt animal behaviours.’ Well, the point is: Homosexuals, Bisexuals and Other sexual minorities are not “doing it” because animals do it, they are just being their innate self while referring Anti-LGBTQIA+ proponents to the animal kingdom as a genuine and untampered—at least in this aspect, unless someone is of the opinion that people are converting animals in the wild into gay animals— part of nature. Finally, scientifically speaking, man is classified under the Kingdom animalia and If the Homo sapiens species were the only member of the kingdom to exhibit non-heterosexual orientations we would have questioned the scientific validity of these orientations being natural but this is not so. What is however impossible to find in the Kingdom Animalia is the hate directed against people of minority sexual orientations. Heterosexuals always say they “came into” their sexual orientations naturally irrespective of how they first explored sex and they are believed but yet promoters of the “against nature” argument find it hard to believe Homosexuals, Bisexuals and Other sexual minorities when they say they “came into” their attractions not from any learned conscious behaviour and irrespective of what their first sexual explorations were. If heterosexuality is natural and not learned, then other variations of sexuality should be easily understood to be natural and not learnt. The funniest thing is that some Anti LGBTQIA+ supporters say homosexual tendencies are strong desires with genetic predispositions—so are stealing, murder and criminal behaviours. The comparison however, is not apt because it is trying to equate Homosexuality, Bisexuality and Other sexual orientations to behaviours that are harmful to society. The flaws of this argument are exposed below. 1. OTHER SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS (proven genetic contributions); “may indeed be natural” 2. MURDER, THEFT (might have genetic predispositions; “may indeed be natural but are harmful and so are considered immoral’ 3. CONCLUSION OF THE ARGUMENT IS, “Other Sexual orientations are harmful and also immoral too” (AN UNTRUE STATEMENT THAT IS INFERRED IN THE ARGUMENT), “so surely you cannot say they are natural if not you are also saying Murder and Theft are natural”.
Again, no orientation is in itself harmful and several studies have shown that Homosexuality, Bisexuality and Other Sexual orientations are no more harmful than Heterosexual orientation. My point here is that, if you can prove that genetics supports predisposition to stealing, murder and other crimes, then those behaviours can be said to be natural but are not acceptable because they are harmful. However, non-heterosexual orientations are both natural and harmless and are not crimes against humanity. Whether they are harmful or harmless is by the way another debate. Bringing it into the argument of “against nature” just shows that the Anti-LGBTQIA+ proponents are in a hurry to get to their real intention of this argument which is to have any reason at all to hate and discriminate minority sexual orientations. I also hear supporters of the “against nature” argument claim that there is no gay gene and so there is no genetic support for other sexual orientations. Permit me to say that people who say this are just brandishing their ignorance on the subject of genetics and its research. In medicine there are numerous conditions and traits with known genetic predisposition for which there are no pin-point single gene culprits. The absence of a particular gene culprit for all cases in conditions such as Schizophrenia, Down’s syndrome and Parkinson’s disease does not dispute the fact that it has inheritance and genetics as a major contributor in its aetiology. In the area of sexual orientation, research has not been extensive for obvious social reasons but the evidence in support of a genetic predisposition is just as strong as that for other conditions in the science of medicine so this ‘show me the exact gay gene’ argument is as invalid as ‘show me the exact straight gene’. One very common type of genetic research which helps scientist to understand the impact of nature and nurture in a situation is the twin studies. One such study by J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard studied male homosexuality among Monozygotic twins (MZ), Dizygotic twins (DZ) and non-related adopted brothers. The study found that 52% of MZ twins both identified as gay, while 22% of DZ twins and only 5% of non-related adopted brothers were so. This showed that the more closely genetically linked people are, the more likely they exhibit the same sexuality. This evidence was repeated by another study and found to be true however not in the same percentages. Obviously, nurture also contributes to what an individual becomes albeit as far as sexuality is concerned nature surely contributes a great quota. This video link gives a rounded view of the genetic theories that support innate homosexual predispositions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP-yZ9jOVnk. Perhaps in another discourse, I will debunk the Anti-LGBTQIA+ argument which say that Homosexual, Bisexual and other sexual orientations are learned behaviours from the media and Pro-LGBTQIA+ societies. The shocking truth is, in many extremely homophobic countries like Uganda, Nigeria and many countries in the Middle East where there is almost zero show of Homosexual affection in the media and most representations of any non heterosexual orientation is usually negative, there exist a significant LGBTQIA population. Even in Nazi Germany where homosexuality was punishable by death, love letters were still recently unearthed of two gay veterans from the German army. In many places, being queer is a cultural taboo and also criminalized. So the big question is, why would so many people ‘choose’ to be hated outcasts? My only plausible answer is NATURE, NATURE, AND NATURE.
Deicide: Be honest if you do have one what would you do? or even better if you were told while your was wife was pregnant that the child is gonna be gay would you abort it ?
Honestly I hope he does, No child deserves to come into this world and meet parents that don't accept them.
Shankieboy: I'm a devoted christian. I believe in Jesus And his teachings. But what I don't seem to understand is Why he hasn't changed my Sexuality. I've prayed. Threatened to harm myself, believing he'll heal me from homosexuality. But all to to no avail.
I've fasted. 5 days dry. I've been celibate for years but I still find myself attracted to members of my gender.
I'm very close to self hate because I feel disgusted with myself. I've tried to be straight. had several girlfriends but I don't seem to be sexually attracted to them. It just doesn't work.
What do I do? Please, help me. I need a miracle. I need an intervention. Else, I'll wallow in depression.
Insults are welcomed.
Nobody should dare insult you. If they do, they are mad.
You are OK. There is nothing wrong with you, it's just that you live in a society where people think homosexuality is wrong, but you need to know that there is nothing wrong with your sexuality.
As for the god you are praying to. Don't mind that unserious God that says he doesn't like homosexuals but still created you as one. ( PS he doesn't exist )
Stop being so hard on yourself, don't allow yourself wallow in depression, There is nothing wrong with you,
Wish you the best, and wish you happiness and peace, so you can get out of depression
Thank you, I'm still looking for the lesson to learn in his story, ?? Apart from the slapping part which I'm very disgusted by, especially the reason he gave for not slapping her,
I find his post very unsettling.
HenryCavill: Interesting post although it reeks of pride. 1. Your in-laws rarely visited you and you found a problem with it. 2. When things took a downward turn they became more involved you had a problem with it 3. I find it shocking that what stopped you from "slapping your wife to remove her make-up" was the fear of the state govt interfering.
Having put your business out there, I'm sure you don't mind if I make it my business also and contribute my 2 cents.
Had your relatively well to do in-laws not meddled when things took a downward turn with you I'm pretty sure someone would have called them wicked for not bothering. Your story about them being relatively wealthier I believe was told from a place of spite and jealousy.
You didn't come from a broke background too, I mean how many people can afford to buy themselves a car talk more of give their child one after graduation.
I don't think you like your in-laws very much and frankly you don't love your wife either. You're bent on becoming more successful than them not solely for your own good but to rub it in their nose.
I don't know the relationship you have with them but I can bet it's a toxic one. Who gets angry at a father sending his daughter money married or not. This silly African mentality of men owning their wives is what's driving this narrative. What do you even mean by "luxury food item"
You cannot bar your wife from having a relationship with her family before you they were there and the day you will slap her (which I believe is not very far) they'll be there to take her away from you.
I sincerely hope you find the courage to tell yourself the truth, see beyond your pride and understand the kind of relationship you want to have with your in-laws.
Serious nonsense. Why do some men even feel as if it's right for them to even think about slapping or beating their wives just because the wife says or does something they don't like.?
eyinjuege: Single parenthood didnt start today, and wont ever end. Even Obama was raised by a single mother and her family. Nothing new there. If you get pregnant and decide to keep it, good for you. Only few youths can confidently say they never engaged in premarital sex. The main focus for any lady is to be financially independent, whether single/married, children/no children Learn to love yourself, and live life according to your own rules
The sad truth is, If you want peace, be single and contented.
Being in a relationship with someone means your peace is relative to them. Your happiness is directly proportional to their willingness to letting you have it.
If you are in a relationship already. There's no definite rule to it. Forget about peace, just live. Peace and love comes to who it wants to come to.
miraokocha: All these people arguing on her head sef. She did not say he is her boyfriend. They are friends. Friends celebrate valentine. Why assume it is only boyfriends and girlfriends that exchange Val gifts? . I can get Val gifts from my male colleague at work.. Does that make him my boyfriend?
I don't really understand oh?
The girl said bff they are trying to force the idea that the guy is her boyfriend and she is hiding it. Trying to force the idea that she friendzoned him. They are doing too much abeg,.
She said the guy is a bff, not a boyfriend, so they should take it like that. Do they want to force the girl to call or make him her boyfriend?
pu7pl3: Are u serious sorry oo...i did not know...hope u enjoyed val...I have edges own....its like my phone is wwe theme song archive...almost everybodys theme is here
Lol,.no probs, thanks, Val was good. Lol, I'll soon join you in having a wwe theme song archive Lol, I haven't been watching wrestling. Give me highlights if you can
TV/Movies › Re: Mods please close this thread, members have become abusive by Daeylar(f): 10:06pm On Feb 23, 2018
) 
