₦airaland Forum

sunshine1974:
it still doesn't justify her display of share stupidity and foolishness. She just embarrassed herself. Nobody likes violent people. From the video u could see she's a very troublesome and violent woman. Na this type dey quarrel with all the neighbors

gotnel:
;

The system remains as of old.
Nothing has changed. The new system that warrants men to caters for more than one woman has changed from what was obtainable before.

Yes, people of nowadays are not farmers who needs battalion to works on the farms but the situation of the world today still demands that one man should be responsible for many ladies if you are comfortable and capable.

The fact remains that single ladies prefers married men as mutual and romantic friends. Particularly the single mothers who are facing serious discrimination from single guys .

Been a second wife doesn't mean being sold to slavery.
Bear with us o yee married women. There are too many women out there that desired and deserved to be married but partners are not forthcoming from the single guys due to economic issues.

The only way to survive is through friendship with the married men who are economically buoyant to care for their needs.

If all the married men withdraw from keeping another lady and been responsible for her upkeep, there will be big trouble in the world.

AdaoraNK:
I share with you, lets focus on career and business. We can not be dependent on them else....you already know

midnighter:
See? In the first place, you stated that polygamy has Biblical backing. Now that you've realised that it doesn't, you've written a whole post about adultery between single girls and Married men which had nothing to do with your original point.

If you were the biblical scholar you claimed yourself to be when you replied to my post you would acknowledge the difference between the roles and restrictions on women in ancient times as compared to nowadays and realised that polygamy has no place in modern society.

That's one of the first things that Christian ministers and teachers explain to people because it's so basic. it's only when Missionaries stumble upon remote communities with low literacy rates, access to agricultural technologies and antenatal/perinatal services that allowances are made for it in the 21st century.

Like I said, polygamy is not a crime in this country but if you want to do it, you go ahead with your own personal conviction without trying to force Christianity to justify it, because you can't! Have a nice day ahead bro!

QueenSuccubus:



See ooo! Chaiii... the wife has the right to go berserk especially when her family are suffering in terms of a husband's attention, basic needs, financial support coz the mumu guy is busy spending his time & money to other women

I juz don't get why a lot of men still wanna get married yet they know they can't keep their itchy d*ck inside their pants sha

Nawa ooo!

gotnel:
My deviation from arguing on biblical beliefs is because you made mentioned of the reasons why it was justifiable in the old testament time of the bible.
And the point that those reasons are not forthcoming nowadays.
I am telling you that yes, the reasons why God almighty permitted polygamy in the days of old still remains but not as it was then.
My point remains .
1. It's biblical for man to marry more than one woman. No need to mention names of biblical characters whom christianity story revolves around that were involved with more than one woman.

therealMcCain:
Marked by what? is Ese Walter not married?

You cant try that with some ladies, una go die there. That woman achieved nothing, absolutely nothing. Even if she backs off, another will take her place, how many is she going to confront?

The video is already on Social Media, that lady can get the woman arrested for assault.

lastly, such actions usually draw the man closer to the sidechic.

midnighter:
LOL please, don't make me laugh. So according to you:

- The Biblical reasons don't apply nowadays and the Biblical figures' lives are not relevant, yet somehow polygamy is Biblical.

-You stated that your issue is that people pick and choose which Bible verses to obey, and reject the old testament rules as being "of old", and now that the biblical reasons have been pointed out to you, you have disregarded them as "of old" and started making up your own rules, which is exactly what you were complaining about, Hahahha.

-Your mentioning of adultery and illicit sexual interactions, vulgarities and succumbing to base desires in order for women to get ahead is what God wants for Christians, despite there being no example of this in the Bible and no church on this planet preaching this.

-The people who propagated the religion to Africa are messing up, so you as a black man have to mess yourself up too, just to teach them a lesson or what

-The way a man is wired is different to a woman and that gives you the right to disregard Biblical injunctions and do as "nature" and your body tells you, when that's exactly what the Bible tells us not to do.

So basically the whole of Christianity is irrelevant as far as you get what you want hahahaha oh gosh!

I'm seriously laughing right now, oga go and marry your 10 wives abeg, let's see if any church on earth will agree to conduct the marriage hahaha

Florenccce:
This is serious

midnighter:
I didnt say God said it was not a good idea. I said that God has illustrated why it is not to be done with levity. When Solomon, Abraham and David married their extra wives, what now happened?

Just because it is culturally allowed or is "acceptable", it doesnt mean it is to be encouraged.

Cultural allowances were also made for slavery; does it make it acceptable

See, when an evil is taking place that is very entrenched in society, is it realistic to ban it completely or to put parameters in place to protect people as much as possible until your main purpose has been achieved?

Stop talking out of point to justify something that is not defensible. If you want to be polygamous then be it and stop trying to drag God into it to console yourself.

God did not construct the institution of marriage for polygamous purposes, deal with it! He only let people do that in the context of their social systems but always points back to His original plans for a man and woman in marriage.

tot:
But I thought you were in support of franchas' comments..

gotnel:
I am not planning or proposing to marry another woman.
The fact must just be put on the table

midnighter:
What is contradictory about it

tot:
Well, his comments were justifying polygamy as being natural which you agreed was 'the truth' but your comments here appear to be anti-polygamy.

midnighter:
My comment refutes the idea that Christianity legalises polygamy and so does Franchas'.

Whether a man is naturally polygamous is besides the point of that comment you quoted.

tot:
Franchas comment you quoted and agreed with was he stating polygamy is natural, which implied it's okay but as you've stated there seem to be 2 different topics that were intertwined.

Anyway, at the end of the day we all make our choices.

midnighter:
If you read what Franchas said, he stated that men are naturally polygamous AND it's the grace of God that they use to overcome it BECAUSE polygamy is illegal on Christianity. Correct!

If you read what this guy I'm talking to is saying, he stated that men are naturally polygamous AND there's nothing wrong with pursuing polygamous marriage BECAUSE polygamy is Biblical.

And if you read further, you will see that he is utterly unable to defend that position, because it's arrant nonsense

We know that it's natural but we differ on what should be done about it.

midnighter:
If you read what Franchas said, he stated that men are naturally polygamous AND it's the grace and doctrine of God that they use to overcome it BECAUSE polygamy is illegal in Christianity. Correct!

If you read what this guy I'm talking to is saying, he stated that men are naturally polygamous AND there's nothing wrong with pursuing polygamous marriage BECAUSE polygamy is Biblical.

And if you read further, you will see that he is utterly unable to defend that position, because it's arrant nonsense

We know that it's natural but we differ on what should be done about it.

tot:
Haha @ arrant nonsense

Franchas' comments were focused on giving numerous excuses for polygamy, so I see both guys' viewpoints as one and the same; one just appeared to be cloaking it by saying it is not 'legal'.

midnighter:
Stating the truth of the polyamorous nature of men compared with women which is clear and obvious for all of us to see is not necessarily "excusing polygamy". People sometimes do that, but he wasn't.

Asserting that it's "illegal" in Christianity has nothing to do with cloaking or concealment because he was explaining to the moniker who quoted him why men run around cheating but don't marry multiple wives when both of them involve having an extra partner.

One person is expressly stating that polygamy is illegal while the other is arguing that it's legal. So they cannot be the same.

midnighter:
Stating the truth of the polyamorous nature of men compared with women which is clear and obvious for all of us to see is not necessarily "excusing polygamy". People sometimes do that, but he wasn't.

Asserting that it's "illegal" in Christianity has nothing to do with cloaking or concealment because he was explaining to the moniker who quoted him why men run around cheating but don't marry multiple wives when both of them involve having an extra partner.

One person is expressly stating that polygamy is illegal while the other is arguing that it's legal. So they cannot be the same.

efavour:
If only you men know, what in the world makes you think that that side chic wants to marry the man? She is there only for what she can get, she has no intention of being in marriage with that man. Most men make this costly error only to learn the hard way.

tot:
You should be a lawyer midnighter if you are not already one!
To me, they both essentially are in the same camp.

chigoizie7:
What do you think about polygamy?

midnighter:
I think my opinion is in that comment you quoted!

Why; what do you think?

chigoizie7:
I think, since it is not illegal and shouldn’t be illegal. It should be classified as people’s choice.

In as much as I am an advocate of one man , one woman. I also think that polygamy is also not morally wrong as long as all parties involved agrees to indulge in it.

It baffles me how the western world see polygamy as wrong and illegal but accepts homosexuality as something right and legal.

midnighter:
Hahaha you think so? Anti-polygamy lawyer

You keep repeating that theyre in the "same camp" without explaining why. And theres nothing like "essentially" here. Are they in the "same camp" or not?

Its obvious that the two discussions are not connected in any way; you've only chosen to link them because they both include the word "polygamy" when the actual content of those conversations has nothing to do with each other.

tot:
No o, full blown all round lawyer!

Both are justifying/giving reasons why polygamy is normal or natural. The only difference is one is of the POV that it's Biblical /legal (which definitely is not) while the other is not.

midnighter:
But you refuse to acknowledge that a natural polyamorous disposition is not the same as actively pursuing polygamous marriage, which is why you keep conflating the two.

The focus of the conversation is not the Bible's position on polygamous nature but the Biblical perspective on polygamous marriage. Just like the Islamic perspective is that a man is entitled to 4 wives, which you can acknowledge without speculating on whether men feel like doing that or not.

If you read the posts back you will see that their contents are entirely different.

tot:
Franchas' posts at the very start focused on stating why polygamy was natural, it was full support for polygamy. This was before the Biblical topic came up (that is not what I am debating here).
In any case, we do not have to agree on this.

tot:
Franchas comment you quoted and agreed with was he stating polygamy is natural, which implied it's okay but as you've stated there seem to be 2 different topics that were intertwined.

midnighter:
I think you already answered this:



You initially queried me on a specific comment with a particular context and you are now widening the net to include a previous comment which was expanded upon later to give its full implication.

Its the subsequent comments that explain what the person meant that should be used for reference and not the introductory statement that has not yet been explored.

A reason is not the same as an excuse or a justification. He did not support polygamy or polygamous marriage; he merely asserted that it is a reality (albeit in his usual brash and irritating manner, which we can be tempted to see as support because he is often deliberately antagonistic and hyperbolic when making a point). It was later on when he expounded his initial statement that I tended to agree with him.

Thereafter came the debate about the Biblical legality of embarking upon polygamous marriages, which as we have both noted is a completely separate discussion.

We dont have to agree on any topical issue but telling me that I supported something when I didnt is not going to fly.