This is based on the Castle doctrine (from "A man's house is his castle"), a legal principle that grants you just about unlimited rights against anyone that intrudes into your home (including, even, government people if they do not have proper warrants!) The doctrine is as old as Western civilisation itself.

In my view, though, aspects of it are due for review. I mean, the way I see it, the law should not avail a defendant who shoots an intruder IN THE BACK as the intruder is running away.

Pastor AIO: The subject of this thread is also treated here in Psalms 14.


14 The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.
2 The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
3 They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one.

In their heart they have said 'there is no god' hence their deeds demonstrate this in every way.

In their heart they have said 'there is no god' though from their lips all you can hear all morning all day and all night is 'God God God.'

I share this view – ran a thread on it a while back. “Believer s“ often deny God by their actions. Whereas those who honour God by their actions cut across the spectrum, including some atheists.

texanomaly: This article made some legitimate points. It could have possibly made many people seriously think. It is well written. It even seems to have sufficiently made an argument that can be taken, at face value, to make sense. The place where it loses all credibility, and frankly it is a shame, is here:


"What has the truth got to do with your feelings? If it's only about your feelings, I'm sorry, Bleep your feelings very much!"

Here the author takes a quite brilliant argument and flushes all credibility down the toilet. The entire premise becomes null and void by these two careless lines. The fair and unbiased "report-like" feel of the article takes on a combative, oppositional, illogical and childish feel. By openly attacking the audience, they immediately go on the offensive and disregard any of the logic the author may have had.

Childish indulgence often silences an otherwise intelligent voice.

Smh...what a shame.

You’re right.

But most of us’ve been there sometime. I sometimes find it hard to keep my peace when confronted by the manifestations of the malignant strain of Pentecostalism spreading around me, or the carnage being wrought by the followers of the late Mohammed in northern Nigeria.

mazaje:

According to the bible god once came down and fought the battle himself. . .Killing people and staining his garment with their blood after which he boasted that he killed all the people alone without help. . .

Lol.

Mazaje, how is you?

Calm down, sir.

You were talking about plagiarism and that's what I commented on. If you want to talk about "indecency", then talk about it - but the artist may have mindlessly lifted the picture without knowing the girl's occupation. I didn't until I read your post. Now, again, do you have information that the picture was used without permission as was obviously the case with the Johnny Walker ad? If it was used with permission, your charge of plagiarism will not stick. Thank you.

It is well known – to informed people, anyway - that 1914, cross and others are not original to the Witnesses. But that does not make it plagiarism since the Witnesses can easily put up the argument that they are coincidentally “true”.

On the German magazine girl, do you have information that the Witnesses used that picture without permission? If they got permission to use it, it would not be plagiarism.

On the Creation book, yeah, that was a particularly new low for the Witnesses. You can’t read that book without wondering what got into the writers.

afroxyz: Catholics can't marry JW, Anglicans can't mingle methodists, protestants can't mingle with presbyterians, and you all call yourselves xtians. Religion has only brought more decimation. Simple!

Yeah. It's sad.

Logicboy03:

You are full of nonsense. You are not sure of what god created, yet he is the ultimate creator. Smh

Hadeyemy: I dnt understant wat dz op z tryin to say. God

I suggest you read it again. It's a very significant "op".

Here, let me help you with the gist of it.

Yooguyz: It is claimed that in 1919 Jesus chose the Watchtower Society to
be his sole channel for salvation,based on it being the only
Organization teaching and practicing truth. Yet numerous practiced of 1919 are now considered to be pagan. This
makes mockery of any claim that the Organization had special
standing in Jesus' eyes in 1919.

olas24u: This type of federal system is really something else ,a whole federal government is the one that will have to fight for 1 worker .when we have state government ,local government,police and other agencies of government .we can never develop like this at all.

My first thoughts when I saw the headline. When will it stop taking a politician trying to score points to get our institutions to do their jobs? When will Nigeria stop being a country where a politician can even give orders to the police?

Reading the first few pages of this thread again confirms that people react to these issues emotionally. I will try to look at the facts here by answering some questions.

Nigerians liberated South Africa. Why are they ungrateful?
The South Africans liberated themselves. They were the ones who got shot on the streets of Soweto, murdered in detention, jailed, exiled and humiliated. Nigeria made its contribution but so did some other countries. Yes, it is normal for you to express dissatisfaction if you feel someone you helped fails to recognize or denies your efforts. But on the Mandela funeral episode, it was the prerogative of the organizers to choose who spoke and Nigerians should not make too much out of it. It appears some of the choice of speakers were made for extant practical reasons. For example, Obama because he is the first black president. Hailemariam of Ethiopia and Banda of Malawi were chosen to speak at the funeral because they are the heads of the AU and Sadc respectively. I don’t know the criterion by which some of the others were chosen but like it said it was the organisers’ prerogative. Nigeria was one of the first countries visited by Mandela on coming out of prison – that was gratitude.

Nigeria did nothing for South Africa – putting Mbeki in a guest house doesn’t amount to helping South Africa.
Nigeria probably contributed more than any other country to the fight against apartheid. Its contribution to efforts to end apartheid was mainly in four areas (1) diplomacy (2) financial contributions (3) scholarship (4) economy.
1. Diplomacy: Right from the time of Nigeria’s first leader, Tafawa Balewa, Nigeria made the matter of South Africa a major issue at diplomatic forums. Its main platforms were those presented by the UN and the Commonwealth. At Commonwealth CHOGMS, it campaigned, cajoled and threatened to pull out. This was revved up with the coming of General Murtala to power in the 70’s. Nigeria’s foreign minister General Garba made lengthy speeches at the UN, calling for sanctions and urging more actions. Nigeria’s diplomatic efforts were often countered by the likes of Kamuzu Banda of Malawi whose constant refrain was that nobody would leave the Commonwealth and destroy it. Obasanjo kept the fire burning when he assumed Nigeria’s leadership in 1976. If you have not read this letter he wrote to Thatcher, you should so do. http://omojuwa.com/2013/04/an-open-letter-to-mrs-margaret-thatcher-from-general-olusegun-obasanjo/
2. Finance: Nigeria made financial contributions to the ANC. These monies came from the Nigerian government and from donations made by the Nigerian people. Yes, the money got to the ANC. Others who made financial contributions included Muammar Ghadaffi of Libya.
3. Scholarship: Nigeria granted scholarship to many South African students to study at Nigerian universities. A good number of them were also employed as teachers and in other positions. Some other Africa countries like Ghana also did this.
4. Economy: Nigerians were encouraged to boycott anything made by companies that did business with the apartheid government.
Nigeria also granted residence and Nigerian passports to many freedom fighters who were exiled from their country and denied passports.

However, for all of Nigeria’s contribution, the country that suffered most for its efforts against apartheid was Mozambique. ANC bases in the country were often attacked by Pretoria’s commandos and its president Samora Machel, a fine gentleman, was killed in a plane crash believed to have been orchestrated by the apartheid’s government’s intelligence agents. Other African countries, including Zambia, Angola and Tanzania also made useful contributions although some of them were a bit of late comers having not gained independence until the late 70’s and 80’s. Uganda also played a role, especially under Museveni.

Why should Nigerians assist African countries in difficulties? For example, South Africa.
If you are in the sitting room and you hear sounds of someone being murdered in the bedroom, what would you do? You would spontaneously stand up and rush to the scene to try to help. Apartheid was a horrendous episode of evil. It was an affront to all right thinking people. It was an insult and a slap on the face of every non-white person alive since it was the ultimate case of institutionalization of white supremacy. We had a responsibility to do something. Everyone did. It is very likely that Freetown would have been razed to the ground during the RUF invasion of 1999 were it not for the efforts of Brigadier (then colonel) Maxwell Kobe. Were it not for Nigeria the RUF would have taken over Sierra Leone completely and turned it into a state of nature. We saved tens of thousands of lives, possibly hundreds of thousands – that is the satisfaction we get.

Nigeria is the most populated country in Africa and has immense resources, including one of the continent's largest armed forces. We should be involved in the CAR at the moment to prevent the situation degenerating completely, as that will cost us more. Ditto for South Sudan. Involvement does not always involve putting boots on the ground. Our diplomats should be more involved.

Why do Nigerians respect Mandela so much? He did nothing for us. He helped free his country, so what?
See the above response. Apartheid was our problem – all of us. People like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King deserve the global respect they get. And we should start giving the same regard to other heroes and liberators – Samora Machel, Kenneth Kaunda, Julius Nyerere, Franz Fanon, Amilcal Cabral, Augustinho Neto, Sam Nujoma, John Garang, Albert Lutuli, Steve Biko, Walter Sisulu, Winnie Mandela and others - instead of going on about Mohandas Gandhi and Winston Churchill. Mandela may have been the face of South Africa’s struggle but he did not work alone. There were many others.

Why do Nigerians feel superior to other Africans?
The myth of the super black has been around for quite some time. It is found mainly among Nigerians, South Africans and African-Americans. African-Americans feel they are the super blacks just because they live in the great USA and not Africa which is worse than death itself. One of them even said he was happy his forebears jumped on a slave ship. South Africans feel they are the super blacks because they live on the European patch of the continent. Nigerians feel they are the super blacks because – well, because they are from Nigeria, the “giant of Africa” (who invented this terrible phrase, for Christsakes?). The myth of the super black man is foolish.

Why do South Africans hate Nigerians?
South Africans don’t hate Nigerians. There are many Nigerian businesses in RSA and no one has ever tried to organize a boycott of them or impose special taxes on them. There are Nigerian professionals and no one has tried to stop South Africans hiring them. Many Nigerian men are happily married to South African women.

What exists is a considerable amount of suspicion of Nigerians – and, yes, this sometimes manifests as hatred. But the suspicion is understandable – even Nigerians are suspicious of Nigerians and you usually have to prove yourself first before you are trusted. At the end of apartheid, many Nigerians went to the country. Unfortunately, there were a good number of them with criminal intentions.

Why are South Africans xenophobic?
Anti-immigrant sentiments are fairly common reaction in countries that get a large influx of economic migrants. Britain is retching things up. Every European country now has its anti-immigrant party doing well at elections. Japan doesn’t take in up to a couple of hundred a year. The people often feel that foreigners are taking their jobs. This is often not entirely true but it’s the common belief. Under the same circumstances, many Nigerians would react the same way. Remember Ghana must go?

Why are so many foreigners perpetrating crime in South Africa?
Most of the crime in South Africa is perpetrated by South African nationals. Unfortunately, apartheid nurtured a culture of violence. Add that to a large number of people who did benefit from formal education and you have the present situation.

Why is not Nigeria not respected?
Nigeria is disrespected because of its failed leadership and reputation for corruption, decay and crime. The present state of Nigeria is not only a shame to thinking Nigerians, but all thinking people of black skin. Anything South Africa achieves will always be seen as the achievement of white people. The only way black people are going to be respected globally is when Nigeria gets it right. But our leaders put their interest before that of the people and siphon money to foreign accounts while poverty spreads. Intelligent and capable Nigerians have to either leave the country or grovel before idiots to get crumbs or eke out what they can out of stone. This is what gives Africans the right to be mad at Nigeria. Unfortunately, this is often expressed emotionally – as you can see in the other thread - rather than constructively.

In the 90’s Nigeria stuck out its neck for Liberia. It lost many soldiers. At a point, Nigeria’s foreign minister Tom Ikimis’ aircraft was landing, frequently too, at Monrovia airport with the aid of a torchlight in his bid to bring peace to that country. Some would expect that Liberian streets would today be named after people like Ibrahim Babangida, Sani Abacha, Tomi Ikimi, John Iniengar, Victor Malu and others. Not so. They don’t even mention their names. When it comes to expressing gratitude Madam Johnson-Sirleaf would rather thank the United States for bringing peace to her country. What the United States did? My memory fails me.

South African companies contribute nothing to Nigeria’s economy and milk people of their money
South African companies contribute a lot to Nigeria’s economy. Businesses exist to make money. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that in doing so, rights are respected. The South African companies in Nigeria operate within the law. If the laws are inadequate or not enforced that is the fault of the government. Imagine what would have happened in 2001 if MTN had not come in. There were no Nigerian companies ready at the time and having only Econet would have caused us a nightmare. There are Nigerian companies in South Africa too (President Mbeki encouraged Nigerian businesses to come in a lot) and they operate within the law, making their contributions to the socioeconomic development of the country.

Where is Nigeria headed?
In the absence of good leadership, anything can happen, but it’s most likely to continue tottering as it is. If a good leader comes, the country still has enough materials and people to make it one of the world’s top ten.

Where is South Africa headed?
The ANC has Nigeria to learn from but it seems it has not done this yet. Although corruption is a major problem in the country, it has not got anywhere near Nigerian proportions yet. They don’t yet have government officials conniving with thieves to loot their mines on a large scale or evidence being presented against a minister for buying two cars for N255m and the president winks at her to carry on. Their former police chief is serving a long jail term for taking a mere $200,000 in bribes. Our own police chief got a slap on the wrist for billions of naira. Their institutions still function – recently a government person investigated Zuma’s house. That doesn’t happen in Nigeria. But with the way things are going, the signs are ominous – they already axed the Scorpions (their EFCC). If the ANC does not move to talk tough on corruption and reign it in, it’s mene mene tekel upharsin and the country could end up like Nigeria.

Of course, he wants to install another incompetent fellow or deadwood - maybe the nondescript Sule Lamido and the scheming Amechi - as president. Jonathan running in 2015 would be a huge stumbling block, hence the letter. It's all about his personal inordinate ambitions. Of course, the allegations in the letter are true, as Jonathan has managed to make horrible Obasanjo to look good.

Logicboy03: "Who are you to judge what happens when another person dies"?
The one that pains me is when they claim that if you dont believe in Jesus Christ, you will go to hell when you die. FUNNY ENOUGH, MANDELA DIED A CHRISTIAN. Yet, these ignorant people claim that he was a buddhist or pagan and so, he is in hell

Not sure about bolded.

The way I recall it, his response to the question "Do you believe in God?" was silence. He said it was a personal matter. Although he was baptised a Methodist as a kid and some referred to him as a Jehovah's Witness (because his first wife, sister and some other relatives were), he himself never actually claimed any and never did religion in his adult life. But he did speak a bit of Christianese and sang hymns whenever invited to church functions.

I hope people knowledgeable in economics and finance will help me make sense of this.

We have $43 billion or so in reserves, yet we borrow billions in "development loans" from multilateral institutions, China, and others and spend billions of naira “servicing” these debts. I understand this is not limited to Nigeria. I swear I have even heard on India borrowing from Nigeria. Why is it so?

This thread is not opened to criticize the present administration or anyone. I simply want to, hopefully, educate myself on why this happens and certainly won’t mind hearing from the experts.

See The Punch: Nigeria to service debts with N2.08tn in three years
http://www.punchng.com/business/business-economy/nigeria-to-service-debts-with-n2-08tn-in-three-years/

plaindealer:
This is your own internet assumptions and not credible facts because he did not use state funds, not at least till you present credible facts to hang your assumptions on.

No, it's not my own internet assumptions. It is yours. You wrote this:

plaindealer:
And what's wrong with spending state resources on your subjects to better their lives? Abi the woman is from MARS and not Edo state?

That^^^ is what I responded to in that post of mine. I gave you an analogy which you rather than respond to went into redemption like a Sunday school teacher.

coogar:
he didn't use taxpayer's money - he used his own personal funds in combo with his daughters. he said so during the interview. watch it before you judge him.

Thank you. No, I didn't bother with the latest video and you will notice that my comment conditional - "unless" - meaning I did not judge him. Now, giving her his own money is good. While private charity of this nature does not bring about the kind of change Oshiomhole was elected to bring about, it is commendable, all the same.

plaindealer:



Unfortunately, your analogy has nothing to do forgiveness, human redemption and compassion.

It's to do with the point being made which you fail to get - the governor has no right to use tax payers' money to settle his whimsical bad behaviours. My post was not about forgiveness and human redemption. My view on that from the start was that he needed to apologise personally to the woman. Now he has done that, very good. Giving her a job was also good if there was a real vacancy and she was qualified for the post. But giving her money was not good, unless it came from his own pocket.

Freiburger: And from whose purse will the money be coming from? tax payer must now pay for a governor's rant? funny guys.

That is what I don't get. Our people never see the whole picture.

plaindealer:


And what's wrong with spending state resources on your subjects to better their lives? Abi the woman is from MARS and not Edo state?

Let me try to break it down for you.

Do you belong to your town's union - Lagos-or-wherever branch? Imagine a member broke a union rule and when called out on it by the chairman she starts to beg. But your chairman rather than show compassion or comport himself properly while enforcing the rules gets angry and tells the member to go and die. After people start calling him names on the streets and he starts losing members' confidence, he dips his fingers into the union's cash doles out N2m to the woman.

How would you feel and has the chairman done the right thing?

Symphony007: This is getting rather ridiculous. Giving government money to a woman because you insulted her. What about the other thousands of widows in edo state who you did'nt tell to go and die. Development does'nt come to them until they are insulted. Nigeria is a really disturbed nation. 2 million for one woman. This money would have gone a long way to help a couple of people. Rather you choose to spend it on one woman for political and social correctness.

Unfortunately, Nigeria is not a place where people actually think. So this obvious point is lost on everyone. Sad. This governor has robbed tax payers of N2m to pay for this foolishness and we have to clap for that!

The short answer is Yes. But that answer can be very misleading, so a longer answer is necessary. And I must place the caveat that we’re talking of a type of intelligence that can be measured using certain accepted metrics.

Intelligent people are less likely to search for answers in unexplained phenomena and choose to accept only that which can be explained rationally. To be sure, the most intelligent person in the world could well be a religious person and the dumbest could well be an atheist. But once we get into numbers, you will find a far higher proportion of intelligent atheists than religious folk. You can, in fact, see corroborating facts here on Nairaland. But to give a specific example, pick up any tape of Pastor Chris Oyakhilome’s. After watching, there’s a likelihood you will conclude that it’s so glaring the man is a con-artist that anyone has to be as dumb as a bottle not to see it. It may be the case that many, possibly most, of his followers are dumb, but you find a few of them who are not.

Now, why do some people question convention and some don’t? (I’m not implying that all religious people are unquestioning.) I think the answer lies in intellectual curiosity and exposure. No matter how intelligent you are, if you lack intellectual curiosity or exposure, you are unlikely to question received “truths”. For example, my friend’s wife studied a science course in one of Nigeria’s first generation universities and graduated first class. She holds a management job in an oil company and has done well for herself. This lady believes that if don’t give 10% of your cash to your church a devourer will come after you. She also believes that anyone who does not “accept Christ” will be burned forever in a fire. I have been able to learn things about her background and I found that childhood was home-school-church. University was SU-lecture-SU-lecture. She never left her comfort zones, never seriously read philosophy or radical literature, never had any of those earth-shattering experiences that force some to ask serious questions and abandon religion and others to bind the devil for causing them to doubt, “renew” their faith and pray harder.

You find intelligent religious people who have got some exposure. They are the ones most likely to be selective in what they swallow from their religion and reject some widely accepted doctrines; they are more likely to emphasise personal spirituality over congregational worship and pastoral guidance. Again, we’re talking numbers – there are religious fanatics who have got exposure and read widely. You can say they never really opened up their minds and took wholly to heart the admonition of the biology teacher who told them it was the devil who put evolution in Darwin’s mind. But that would be subjective.

And there is also to be considered the fact that atheism is becoming a fad – in some places. I mean, there was a time when getting a tattoo set you apart as an anti-establishment person. Not anymore. Every danfo driver, bored housewife, runs girl or high school kid with extra bucks is getting one. Atheism is going that way already. Shelley was expelled from Oxford just 200 years ago for doing atheism. Back then, only a few radicals and “ne’er-do-wells” openly identified with atheism and they were usually, like Shelley, very intelligent and slightly crazy. All that has changed. Not in Nigeria, yet, though – we’re still a long way from logicboy’s golden future time when the senate president would, like Nick Clegg, declare himself an atheist and an average Nollywood actor, artisan and Lagos alaye boy will tattoo the A word on his arm.

Purist:

You have something against gay people?

Plus, according to your logic, dislike for weapons = gay.

Lol.
I think Ihe meant to infer femininity - but you know Nigerians and "gay". His point about males and guns and all is valid, albeit there are always exceptions.

PAGAN 9JA:


hes neither European, nor African.

He is Semitic.

People need to stop succumbing to this racism perpetuated especially by white americans and black african-americans, which is gradually spreading onto us.

Right.

50calibre: Did some of you guys watch this video till the end? How can someone possibly hail this as ingenious, this is a disaster. Did anyone see the permanent large gaping holes on their heads?

People for the rest of their lives, will walk around with the possibility of their brains being fried by the sun

The gods were indeed stu*pid.

The key word is possibility.

This not good enough and I find it quite disturning but it is NOT a disaster. I mean, if you have cancer spreading in your brain to do you in in six months and these guys mend you with their knives and banana leaves and you go on to live till old age that is something good. The head is fragile in any case, this just made it a little more. So some extra care is what is required on the part of the survivor. But, of course, this is only good WHERE no better or modern options were available.

Tolexander: Even CS!

Actually, African healers performed CS pre-Western medicine. Recorded fact.

@op
I found this quite disturbing, though - but I guess it was okay since there were no better options. Besides, what's with the "witch" doctor nonsense? All all the dancing rituals? This was just a medical expert performing a surgery.

highyo: Founder of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Charles T Russell in Hell.
We continued walking and the Lord showed me a man whose hands were stretched out and the surprising thing about this man is that he had a very fine sword inside his tongue and this sword crossed through his head and was coming out of his body. His feet were grabbed by chains and his back was full of blades set in different positions in a way that no matter how he moved, he would be cut. When I saw this man in this condition, I told Jesus, “Lord, please help him. Do something Lord Jesus. Look at the terrible pain that this man is going through.” The Lord asked me- “You don’t know who this man is? “No, Lord”, I said. I saw how the knives got through his skin and then through the bones and how they came out of his body. The man only screamed in agony. The Lord told me, “Judgment against this man has been established. Now I am going to tell you the identity of this man.” Because of that revelation, the Lord said ‘You will have to run from city to city because this will cause you a great persecution but I will be with you.” He went on to say “Rodolfo, this man is Charles T. Russell”. I said “Lord, who is he?” The Lord said that this man was the founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I pleaded “Lord, please help him” and the Lord said: “No, Rodolfo”. And as the Lord moved his hands, immediately I saw that many souls were falling into hell in every way possible: they were falling head first, feet first, stomach first etc“.Rodolfo, for that cursed man, all these souls are entering into hell. This man taught that God was only a God of love. The Bible says that God is a consuming fire. This man Charles Russell took the word hell from the Bible and he took out all the words sheol and Abadon. Also, he denied the deity of Jesus Christ and also denied the deity of the Holy Spirit and he put only the Word Jehovah in the Bible. He took out Jesus and the Holy Spirit. For this cursed man, all these souls are falling into hell.” (Revelation 22:18-19) Then the Lord said: “I curse that man”.

Please Jehovah Witness that is listening to me at this moment, I don’t want to offend you. Get out of that sect and come to Jesus quickly. I don’t hate you and I don’t hate your religion either, but you are in a farce. Come to Jesus. He is waiting for you with open hands. Charles Russell is in hell because he taught lies. Don’t follow his lies. When we left this place, these prison doors closed and caught fire and this man Charles Russell cried and screamed and cursed Jesus repeatedly because Jesus said “The judgment has been set for this man”.
Now the Lord said: “Rodolfo, now I am going to show you the black jails of hell. This is the extreme punishment of Satan to the souls in hell.”. “No Lord, please! I have already seen terrible things. Take me out of this place’’. The Lord said, “OK, Rodolfo, I am not going to do anything if you don’t permit me. I am going to take you to heaven now”.

Seems they have shekpe in heaven - or what could be responsible for this "Lord's" lies? Russell's or his followers didn't write any of that in any Bible. Russell didn't even translate any Bible!

^^^ Entertainment. Since there's no cartoon section.

This should be interesting. BERNIMOORE, the JW, and hislud are usually good reads.

Still no coherent argument there, Mr Iredia - only rants and bickering about are and aren't which though quoted was excluded from the phrase I criticised and so isn't of any relevance to anything. Try again, although I will not reply you.

Truth be told, you'll hardly know if my argument is faulty, I'm that slick.

That^^^, your statement that it was okay to introduce your own definition for subject matter and your other rants show the fundamental fault in your thought process. Cussing or widening the argument to include nonsenses doesn't make you right or appear clever. It makes you sound dishonest and desperate.

Anyway... marriage isn’t a necessity - not for the perpetuation of our species, not for anything else. You said it was. You have since come out to say what you meant by marriage wasn’t marriage but sex as you changed your position to marriage defined differently from original context and general understanding. There is nothing left to argue. There wasn't even one to begin with since I meant marriage by marriage and you say you mean sex by marriage. But you can continue with your dance moves. You may even find someone who agrees with you that sex is marriage ("emphasis on heterosexual and people" ).

I was the one who made a statement about marriage that you charged at with your ridiculous assertion that marriage is necessary for the perpetuation of the human race. You sought to thrash an assertion made by me. So how come this has become about what you mean by marriage rather than what I meant? Your new stance, the one you are now repeating, that sex = marriage (“emphasis on heterosexual and people”) isn’t clever on your part – it only shows you as dishonest and desperate. Well, it can be interesting to watch one trying to wriggle out of a web they spurn themselves. Now come back and shift the goalpost once more – maybe you’ll find something here that further shows how I misunderstood what you meant by marriage.

I said, they aren't marriage as a $€xual and parental union.

What does this mean?

Kindly ask the next person you see what marriage is since you no longer know and now make up definitions for the term as you go. The phrase “marriage as a sex/ual and parental union” is a meaningless expression you have devised to confuse the situation. If you are saying that a legal contract isn’t necessary for any practical kind of union between a man and a woman, wasn’t that my initial assertion that you charged at with your ridiculous statement, a position you have since accepted while still flailing with your hands in a frantic bid to maintain that you have a coherent argument?

*Edited*

Mr Iredia -

I said marriage is not necessary – it’s reasonable to believe we both know what marriage means. At least, I was responding to a post so there is a context. The post I was responding to had this for background “What worked during friendship wont necessarily work during courtship. What worked during courtship wont necessarily work during marriage.”

You said it is for the perpetuation of the human race.

I asked you to explain.

There is no misunderstanding here. The bit about me seeming to think what you had in mind and your subsequent devolution into speculations about aborigines in a bid to prove that sex = marriage (emphasis on heterosexual and people) is afterthought nonsensical hot air.

Whilst these legal and social constraints aren't crucial to marriage as a $€xual and parental union vital to child rearing and sustenace of the human race. They are important, and possibly crucial, to sustenance of human society . . . unless I speak with a nihilist

What does this even mean?

You can’t talk about “these legal and social constraints” being crucial to marriage. Mr Iredia, they are marriage. And like I said, marriage is not necessary for anything. No be watin bring the matter be that?

If you want to discuss sexual restraints/nihilism you can open a thread or something – like I said, it’s another topic.

What did I say again? Marriage is not necessary for anything. It’s okay to disagree but you should write a good argument backing up your position.

Alfa Seltzer:

Ah! Ishi my love. Good morning to you. May the blessings of Satan fill your day.

Ishilove:
I reject it by fire by thunder

Funny.

Great post. Thank you.

Uyi Iredia:

You need the man's sperm and woman's egg and womb to concieve and birth a baby. You also need the protection and support of a father whilst the mum weans her new-born child(ren) till they can fend for themselves. Peace.

Of course, I would not have asked a Christian to explain. Still I will ignore the sarcasm.

You have not made an argument for how marriage perpetuates the human species. You are only confusing having a monogamous relationship with marriage. Both are social constructs but while there is an apparent personal utilitarian value from the former, there is none whatsoever for the latter. Marriage serves mainly as a means of control. I mean dictatorial control. It also serves as a means of revenue for the state and the church. You don’t need a piece of paper to commit yourself to another person and offer protection or what not. (I am not saying having a monogamous relationship is necessarily necessary for anything. So I am talking in terms of people who are so conditioned, or who even having grown out of conditioning and embraced free humanistic thinking, are so inclined, but that’s another topic) And are you aware of societies where they don’t do marriage and that they function well and children get protection till they can fend for themselves?

*Edited.*