₦airaland Forum

By the way the sodomy laws in which the couple were convicted under is a "western" construct.

Are you guys still going to go on with your ewedu and contradictory arguments. So what is good for the goose at a specific time, is not good for the goose when it has changed a bit sebi?

I brough this up to show marriage is treated as  a union between a man and woman and you could be prosecuted for polygamy [/b]understand this act. An act that bans homosexual marriage tells you that the public is not ready to extend marriage acceptance  to homosexuals  in the United States, while at the same  time  the U.S is negating the public oppostion to  homosexual act in Malawi. Our voters are opposed to it, we respect them, your public is opposed to it, they are uncivilized and bigoted. forget about them any way

Adconline read carefully about the DOMA act. It does not [b]ban anything by the way. It is not a prosecution law or one that can be used in court for felony or misdemeanor charges:

The provisions:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same intimacy as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
   2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

This means that its not recognized by a state. This does not mean that it is illegal or that you can be prosecuted with this law. It just means that it is not recognized. Further, Nigeria has a similar law which does not recognize polygamy by the way except in the North.

Its different from being[b] illegal[/b]. Yes, polygamy is illegal in the US- but under the MPC (model penal code)

An act that bans homosexual marriage tells you that the public is not ready to extend marriage acceptance to homosexuals in the United States, while at the same time the U.S is negating the public oppostion to homosexual act in Malawi

As I mentioned, that was not the reason the law was made.

Please cite a recent case in US law in which gay couples were prosecuted or taken to jail for marriage even in a jurisdiction where it is not recognized. You have none

Now cite a case in Africa where gay couples were placed in prison?

LOL. Agbalumo to pineapple argument as always

I have shown an example of a western country, the UK, where polygamy is ensured as long as its in a foreign setting. The UK overturned their law based on the same arguments you are using, to show they respect for equality like that.

All of you and your cushion arguments. No parallel argument ahs been proposed yet that actually catches my fancy.

I brough this up to show marriage is treated as a union between a man and woman and you could be prosecuted for polygamy understand this act. An act that bans homosexual marriage tells you that the public is not ready to extend marriage acceptance to homosexuals in the United States, while at the same time the U.S is negating the public oppostion to homosexual act in Malawi. Our voters are opposed to it, we respect them, your public is opposed to it, they are uncivilized and bigoted. forget about them any way

Let me flesh this out: You are basing your argument on "public indignation". But that was not the main purpose of the DOMA act. It was made to protect the autonomy of state laws, while clarifying any ambiguity in American federal law.

Additonally, there are tons of other countries which are not western. Further these human right groups are up the US arse, just like they are up Malawi's arse on gay legislation. The US has the right to criticize Malawi because homosexual acts are not illegal in tehir own country, so no double standards is being employed.

Do you still want to continue with the agbalumo to pineapple argument again?

Initially, U.S marriage law is a derivative of English common law which is derivative of Roman and Canon laws which were heavily influenced by Christian teachings.

How does this answer to those who are not Christians when it comes to polygamy or polyandry?

Please include this clause, before you make any statements. These laws are being challenged when needs arise. The laws of teh US were indirecty (including there sodomy laws) predicated on Christian laws.

They are currently being challenged as the need arise.

Dont you also contradict yourself- Several post-colonial sodomy laws were predicated on english common law- but you are quick to shout euro centrism for your point?

By the way adconline you have not answered my question yet:

1. Are you debating gay marriage or the right to gay banging. These two are different you know. I want clarification. I have said many times, I am not making a stance about gay marriage.

We are already going into the DOMA act??

Thank you for helping me out , presidents do not sign state laws, but federal laws. so if DOMA were to  clash with state laws, DOMA would be adopted? ain't it?

It does not work that way. You seriously dont understand US laws. Ok, let me take time and explain:

Assume Gay marriage is upheld in Maine state law. So a gay person marries in Maine. Now the Gay person move to Louisiana  . Then the Gay person wants to claim marriage benefits and such. They Go to court. The lawyer for the gay couple cites the Maine state law that upheld the marriage. In the absence of a federal law that ensures the autonomy of Louisana marriage laws, the Judge cannot rule otherwise or strike the marriage.

So, the DOMA law was initiated to clarify this ambiguity. In fact, it was initiated immediately Gay marriage was upheld in Hawaii, and states where nervous about this being cited in other court cases. Check the wiki page, it might make things easy for you to understand:

At the time of passage, it was expected that Hawaii (and possibly other states) would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation  or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

U dont get it,  polygamy or polyandry is viewed as an affront to western civilization. To contextualise this argument, ' eurocentric view' is held as a the truth and superior to every other argument simply becuase they hold it to be tru[/b]e. You are using it as a priori which forms the basis of your argument

No its not. In the past yes that could have flown amongst the white supremacist that filled the offices of Europe and America, now the arguments against it are different.

Your arguments that polygamy is not eurocentric and so is not accepted does not make sense. Please stop using conjectures- clarify??
[b]
Polygamy is outlawed in several states in the world that are not western by the way.

Was DOMA also passed because of national security?

no it was passed for clarification actually. Infact I am still wondering why you brought this in the debate. Infact go to the wiki page, it clearly states that this clarifies the federal view of marriage.

Please why did you bring DOMA into this?

tempest01:
Well u can believe whatever u want to but believe me there is a[b] supreme being who created all things[/b], well if u believe u came from apes still good for you. There were apes millions of years ago why are they not still evolving abi them no like beta??

Yeah right.

Anyway, we diverged from a specific type of apes a long tym ago. This divergence took millions of years, and according to certain situations that cannot be easily reciprocated. Infact the apes we evolved from are a distinct phyla. You are like my stalker, asking questions that scientists would call outrightly st.up.id. Moreover, the molecular clock of an ape is about what 1x10-9 mutations in each replication cycle.

Anyways, evolution does occur but it can only be easily seen in organisms which muatate very quickly like bacteria. Complex organisms evolve very very slowly. infact I met a professor in molecular biophysics who uses forced evolution to study protein folding. Basically, he places an organism like E.coli bacteria in various extreme conditions, while watching the organism evolve quickly to withstand these conditions. From these he can watch various biological processes- really cool stuff.

Anyways off-topic

UN Charter:

Article 30.

* Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Polygamy would lose on these grounds. It can be proven with reasonable doubt that polygamy is not the ideal situation for independent, financially capable women. Although polygamy is part of a religious right, just as it can be claimed sacrificing people is the right of a voodoo religion, it violates the rights of other autonomous individuals

So if we are saying that marriage is a human right, then polygamy and polyandry should be covered, but the same folks who make the same argument in the west will never allow polygamy and polyandry. Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996 clearly defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and it’s utra vires of any another laws enacted by the states with regard to marriage laws

Weak. This is because polygamy could be argued to be subversive to women's rights. Gay marriage a parallel argument cannot be proposed. Now I am debating gay marriage lol, which I did not want to do.


The DOMA Act is federal law by the way. Its not a state law. Some states allow gay marriage. But the DOMA allows non-recognizing states to disregard these marriages within there jurisdiction.

How did u reach that conclusion of what is ideal? Your premise on morality should not be the benchmark for measuring what's moral from another person's point of view. In the context of this discussion, Malawi is not a western nation and cannot be  forced to conform to Eurocentric views of the world, just like the same the way the west cannot accept polygamy or polyandry.

Kantian morality should be objective and not subjective. Objective based on reason, and not subjective based on emotions. Who told you that homosexuality is an eurocentric view? When did homosexuality become legal in the west that it is now an "eurocentric view? So equality is an "eurocentric view? Are you effing serious?

tempest01:
God created Adam and eve , Not Adam and steve!!

Assuming God exists . . .

My point is that common marriage law is a product of ancient Roman and Canon laws and should not be the basis for marriage laws in every other country. So if we are saying that marriage is a human right, then polygamy and polyandry should be covered, but the same folks who make the same argument in the west will never allow polygamy and polyandry.

1. Please wikipedia common marriage law. I think you are mixing some stuff up. common law marriage is an informal type of marriage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

2. I never said marriage is a human right?? Please pull that for me. Also marriage does not have to do with the Malawi couple again. I am not debating gay marriage, I am debating gay banging lol

like please make it clear before i engage you, which one are you talking about, before we go in circles?

This is really as silly as someone bringing a case of a man trying to kill his wife to run off with his lover, and then claim it is evidence monogamy is harmful to women. Therefore monogamy should be banned.

Is there really no case of domestic abuse, like the story quoted, in monogamy? This argument is really embarassing coming from our leaders of tomorrow.

Paradigm of the agbalumo to pineapple argument.

1. In your example, women can do the same. The power relationship is equal in this hypothetical situation.  Women can kill there husbands to run away from their lover. Further, no question of contracted consent is involved in your case. I gave you an example of where a woman refused to engage her husband who wanted to marry someone else. I was pointing to your claims on "why consenting adults cannot perform polygamy." Its quite simple- never is polygamy a consensus. Rarely do women have the chance to marry multiple men. This brings me to my second point:

2. Your example is not even a close parallel. Please bring me an example, where women marry multiple men, and abuse them as such. For every one you could find, I could find the opposite a million folds. Young girls contracted to polygamous men, the sufferings there children undergo because of polygamy. I would also bring severe legal problems with polygamy. But I doubt you could bring one case where a woman marries a lot of men, and punishes them.

Polygamy and homosexuality are not the same, except by some warped logic.

Couldn’t the same argument be made that homosexuality does not do any good to the Malawian society?

You are jumping logic points. Another thing I hate apart from agbalumo to pineapple arguments is the logic jump argument.

This is how I went:

Polygamy is never the ideal situation for women-therefore polygamy is bad- but people still want to claim polygamy should be legalized-why, is polygamy good?

Next step, the person pulls the last part and ignores the rest of what I said and says- can you claim homosexuality is good? Or can I claim picking my nose is good?

You should go like this:
Homosexuality is decadent to our society- then prove why its decadent to our society- and then suggest why the rights of homosexuals should not be ensured although they are moral beings- then argue- is there really any worth to the society by homosexuality?

I dont like being begged the wrong question. Please start with why homosexuality is bad.

I am sick of the polygamy argument, it has nothing to do with this situation or most of the situations worldwide. Gay banging is illegal in several places not to talk of gay marriage.

This is about gay banging, not about gay marriage. Can you guys see why everything you type is a waste of time?

Basically adconline, the US made several laws based on perceived ideas of morality, values and religious sentiments in the past. However these laws are continually being challenged based on logic. Just like the laws in Malawi should.

Is that not what we are arguing about? You are just giving me the support I really dont need lol.

You are making conjectures not based on fact. America is a conservative country by western standard, they believe in God more than other country in the Western Hemisphere. They go to church more than any country in the Western Hemisphere. Their conservatism revolves around social issues like gays in the military, gay marriage and abortion. You may not win a presidential election in the U.S  if you are strongly in favor of these social issues. So the executive arm controls the U.S Army not southern Americans. Politicians not want to alienate voters who are driven by social issues.

[

Are you sure I am the one making conjectures?

In my undergrad in the US, which was a religious school, and for every 100 people who went to church, only 5 believed in God (If you engaged them in a private discussion). Agreed this sample is biased because of the large number of intelligent people, but it highlights biases between polls and individual beliefs. If you poll them 60% would claim to believe in God. 0% would follow even one of the christian tenets closely.

You missed my point. When I mentioned southerners, I pointed to an argument that could be used to keep the DADT law. Its basic fact that US army is made largely from people in the south, especially those from the Bible belt. But the DADT law was made because of national security. It was not made because of any conservatism.

b]This law has not been repealed as you said[/b], the US House of Reps voted to ban DADT.The Senate has not voted on it. The U.S has a bicameral system that would require a vote on both houses of Senate and Reps. It’s like saying that Bill Clinton was impeached without saying that he was impeached by the house representatives and acquitted by the senate, so he was not impeached.

Stop selecting semantics that dont have to do with the argument. I made sure i included supposedly repealed, to avoid semantic arguments lol. Of course it would be obvious that it would take more than 2 days to repeal a law, but I lacked a better word. Anyways its in the process of being repealed lol

Polygamy is outlawed in all the states in the U.S and it’s a federal crime, so make no mistakes about that. There are laws against bigamy as well. You have just butchered history here. A little of legal lesson. Common marriage law is practiced in the U.S and it was derived from English common law, which was derived from Roman and Canon laws. Does Roman Catholic have anything in common with Roman and Canon laws? Go figure.

The first bolded- You got that straight out of wikipedia. But you should have read further. Second bolded-what does this mean?

I have never said polygamy is not illegal in the US. So what did I butcher? This is what I said:

1. The polygamy law is not severely enforced in the US. Polygamy unions do occur as I mentioned earlier.
2. If it was, and brought to court, it will not hold water in my own opinion and those of others. I might be no lawyer, but I can spot a weak argument. Women rights organizations will shout fire and brimstone. It would take the feminist movement several years back. These women rights organizations are less in the UK lol, so that could have been why the polygamy law was amended.

I said the law can be challenged but it will probably lose in court

Polygamy goes on in the US amongst religious communities, and the government is aware of this, but as long as it does not affect communities or there are no movement to institutionalize or legalize it everyone is Ok. Women will be pissed lol

Adconline all my arguments flew past your head. For example:

This argument is lopsided and mute because Malawi does not tout herself as Christian nation and laws are made based on values, cultures, principles, and norms of a country.

I was telling you why polygamy laws in the US were first initiated. This law has not being challenged but its premise can easily challenged, then another argument for keeping the polygamy laws in the US would have been brought forward. This does not have to do with Malawi, but why polygamy is illegal in the US.

Also my main concern is why everyone is pointing at laws in the West. Human Right Organizations criticize laws in the West including the UN. So you guys are just clutching to straws.

LMA0 at all una posts. @ SEFAGO, you may need more than $10M to marry FL Gators o. That babe seems more high maintenance than Naomi Campbell.

I know that she will leave me after my 10 milla done finish, but i will make sure i get my moneys worth b4 she leavels

the devil wants to canonize jesus

I can bring 50,000 articles showing the effects of polygamy on women and in encouraging child abuse. I doubt my challengers can find one which show women marrying multiple men and engaging in violence against those men. Polygamy can never even reach the stage of "consenting adults" in our present social structure.

Polygamy is a moot argument. Only olodos pursue those path. Thats why Malawi would. i would expect more from Nigerians.

Bring it on, but no more silly arguments like bestiality or polygamy before I call sango on you all.

Prolly around 10 million dollars. Would be buy me a nice car, help me marry FL Gator, and maybe an apartment in some European country.

Then I would make sure i make some viable projects before I leave.

Low IQ Polygamy argument people, check this out:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-454756.0.html

This is what you want legalized sebi. Nigerian women have not suffered enough, you want them to also suffer in America sebi.

Excerpt:

The Deji of Akure Land Oba Adepoju Adesina descended so low on sunday evening has he battared one of his wife openly in front of the state specialist hospital Akure,pouring a liquid substance suspected to be acid on her for challenging his [b]authority to marry [/b]Mrs Remi Abiola,wife of late chief M.K.O Abiola.

consenting adult argument my arse. Now we would expect another woman who hears this story to argue with her husband about a polygamous union while expectant of acid being poured on her.

Feminist theorist have strong arguments. Its just that there arguments fly past those with low intelligence and dismiss them as emotional because they are women.

there is a lot of ignorance in the rural areas and is sad how some people lead segregated lives.

The funny thing is that some of these people are not even bad people per say but are actually deeply religious people with a good heart. Its just that when it comes to identity issues, they fall back into the same cycle and start fearing what they think they do not know or understand. There are also some people who are just hateful

The black people too are very religious. Infact I once went to the deep south, not a city, but the rural area, and one of the black people kept on referring to me as Obama's friend (Because I was African). That was before Obama won the elections, and there was still some doubt amongst the African Americans who distrusted Obama because his father was African and his mum white.

Nevertheless, I think the people down south are nice but still a bit prejudiced. Enter some places and you would get a lot of stares. Enter some places with your white girlfriend, and then you would get a lotta stares lol

fine-boy

LOL, jaja of opobo's grand son or whatever pimping.

Corrupt Yorubas and Dirty Stinking Hausa/Fulani Gworo mouth turned Nigeria to a Garbage Land.

U no well. Have you seen Yoruba princes? they don't do this rubbish lol

I laugh in Jankara!
Alhaji PhotoShop, have you seen articles like this one? http://thenewsng.com/nation/still-fighting/2008/10

Beaf- look. the OP's picture had a handle of a door, while the one in the article you gave lacks the handle. This hints that the original source of the picture is not thenewsng. We dont know where the picture came from-I would like to know the original source of the picture

When we know its original, thats when we can discuss the symbolic significance lol

There is another African guy that I schooled with in one of the cities in the south.

Ok makes sense. I meant rural south which is still psychologically segregated today. I am not talking about Atlanta or Nashville, I am talking of dirty south.

African's have the collective memory of the archetypical Goldfish and journalists take advantage of this. The Goldfish is known to have a one month long-term memory span but 3-second memory span. Its surroundings in a jar always look new to him after 3 seconds. That's why its life in captivity is not so bad afterall for Africans lol

Babangida's [b]election ambitions [/b]in 2007

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4393697.stm (disclaimer written by a nigerian)

The speculation is that in exchange for the support that he received from Babangida, the president would anoint him as his successor when he steps down at the end of his second term in 2007.

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/education/artikel.php?ID=81458

At a press conference at the International Press Centre in Accra, the Ghana Chapter Chairman of the movement, Mr Henry Bubemi Shebure, extolled the virtues of General Babangida and hailed his intention to contest the country?s presidency as being in the best interest of Nigeria and the entire African continent and Black race.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200507210251.html

Lagos — The Director- General of the National Democratic Party (NDP), Prince Kassim Afegbua, has said no amount of campaign on the internet will stall alleged moves by former President Ibrahim Babangida to contest the 2007 presidential election.