₦airaland Forum

Masikay:
Someone who prophesies is referred to as a prophet. Or pastor or whatever. And you are saying female leaders are sinners. So what is a female, who was called by God to preach his gospel supposed to do?

Prophesying is not an office. Offices - in as much as they still exist, and that's a whole different discussion - are occupied by men. The office of pastor is reserved for men. Preaching the gospel is not the same as taking authority or teaching mature Christian men.

Failures on the part of men may mean a woman has to act, but that is not Gods perfect will, or else he would give his approval to single-motherhood .


TV

Masikay:
So what would a lady who has the gift of prophesy do? Prophecy to only females?

...is prophesy leading or taking authority over men?


TV

Masikay:
Oh.... Is your argument for male superiority restricted only to marriage and in the church? And you didn't answer the first question.

Authority, not superiority. Perhaps "seniority" would be better.

If a woman is senior to a man in their place of work or professionally, or has authority over him in those realms, no problem.


TV

Masikay:
So your bible quote is confusing me. Clarify something for me please, if a woman holds a higher position than a man, has this woman somehow commited a sin? Or lets say, a female leader in the church, has this woman commited a sin by preaching to men?

Yes she has.

The bible is clear, women are not to take authority over, or teach mature adult men in a church setting. And shouldn't at home either.


TV

pcguru1:
I am 100% far from married, am not even in a relationship. I just like reading on married people's news ,articles and experiences . curiosity i guess

Gird yourself


TV

pcguru1:
True all marriages becomes sexless at it's natural point and there's the extreme sexless marriage where one loses interest in it and doesn't care about the other party. i read alot of deadbedroom posts and i find it intriguing.

It absolutely happens and can be a very hard fix. But it's certainly fixable. I think the key is to get it right going in. Then it won't be as likely to happen, not be as bad if it does, and be more readily fixable.

Dude, may I ask, are you married?


TV

...hmmm. Where was I. Well I've grown up in those 3 years .

Rich and poor countries are not at absolute ends of the spectrum. I would imagine that most celebs in Nigeria earn and live a more comfortable life than I do. Although I think I barely make middle class. Lower middle class sef

Food is a good measure, but only one. In most countries I'd say housing was the koko. The following though;

well-off countries have a productive economy, a government that is responsive to the citizens, a capable bureaucracy, and the rule of law.

Without this, nothing else can really happen. No (not enough) security, no (critical mass), infrastructure, no (well functioning) institutions, no (readily & steadily available) utilities, no (quality) educational or healthcare delivery. No (thing).

I don't believe that mass importation of unskilled workers to developed nations will work. At least not in numbers that would make a meaningful difference.

First the indigenous poor/low skilled would hate it. It would disenfranchise them economically to a great degree. Not to mention possible social tumult. It's one of the reasons for the Trumprising.

It may actually work better to import lots of semi to highly skilled workers to developing nations. They would hopefully bring change and innovation. Not least because they would be used to, and demand good order and due process.

But would the entrenched corruption allow itself to be broken and give way? Maybe I'm too much of a pessimist regards the state of men .

Liked his 4 point thesis, but not his solutions. If those 4 could be tackled and al the no's become yesses. But to be honest, whatever level of development, if the people are righteous, they will prosper.

I see much of the prosperity of the West as due to legacy righteousness. I see decay and a falling away. I think many here feel it, but can't figure out why, hence things like Brexit and Trump. But these things will not save them either. It's just the flip side of the same coin.


TV

pcguru1:
Out of curiosity what of a sexless marriage.

pcguru1:
I get your point but that means either they hae some form of open relationship or they stay together with resentment then again some couples are asexual so it's no biggie. Was just curious to know people's breaking point in that regards.

..and simply fixing the sexlessness - unless it is by mutual consent - at the root is not an option? At some point - if they live long enough - all marriages become sexless no?


TV

oieda:
What I mean by that is, I do not want you to quote what your religion says. Because a lot of people just follow. What are you convinced about. If the views of the religion you adopt and your personal views are same, fine, but you never stated it - the view.

Can one who claims to follow a religion without being convinced of it's tenets be anything ore than a mere dilettante? To me, a faith this is not fully embraced in part or in whole should be discarded in whole. If you say you are and you don't believe, then you are not.

Marriage is for life, till death do part - and there is no divorce for a consummated marriage - or re-marriage while a first spouse is still alive.


TV

Bukatyne you won't greet me before you rain queries on my head

bukatyne:
It seems the OP is saying both:

Men are of more 'value/worth' and they have more responsibilities

I do not believe OP is and I certainly do not. However, best clarify with OP. Who by the way has agreed with my original rejoinder.

bukatyne:
Well, definition of 'oppression' is subjective... A man bringing in a 2nd wife 30yrs ago was being 'a man'; today, he will get all sort of names.... ditto a man beating his wife.

Cultures - not necessarily religion - supported polygyny for many reasons. High mortality, family labour, yes, even prestige, and even the libido differential between men and women. Even then, numbers alone (approx. 106 men to 100 women) meant that not all men could have many wives, and it was men at the lower end who would be the biggest losers, having no-one. Typically lower status, they would be doomed to live short-brutish, servile lives.

Beatings happened, but I don't know of a culture that upheld it as normal & desirable. I would imagine in most, it was actionable by the women.

bukatyne:
I agree that we can't evolve drastically without looking at the laid foundations.

And that is what Feminism and progressive liberal ideology seeks to do. The biggest two are the removal of biological reality and the casting off of moral restraint.

bukatyne:
Mantle of marriage or superiority aka higher responsibilities?

I only mentioned "higher responsibilities", which covers all nature of forms of male/female relationships. Do girlfriends customarily support their boyfriends financially .

bukatyne:
What is your definition of higher status?

In terms of achievements, accomplishment, being established, education, social level, and of course finances. Where money is not such a driver, other more cosmetic things may come into play.

bukatyne:
It depends on your definition of 'equality' and I am also wondering the usage of 'superior' here. If it doesn't mean 'more/better in worth', are you saying generally, women don't like men who have less responsibilities in marriage than them?

Yes. Yes I am. It's evidenced even here on NL. More than an unfaithful man, perhaps even more than an abusive man, women reserve the most opprobrium and anger for "irresponsible men" - not taking ownership & responsibility for the welfare of their families. Are you seriously saying you cannot see that?

bukatyne:
If yes, how does this tie in with the fact that wives are often told they build their homes and the responsibility of how the marriage is lies solely on them?

Building a home in that sense is more about giving your husband the support he needs to carry out his role. Not being un-submissive or antagonistic, or dragging headship. It's not about turning sole provider, or even major provider. I appreciate economic dynamics and some individual situation may change things, but a man should always be responsible in this regard. Whilst it should never be more than optional/situational for women.

bukatyne:
Examples of the 'masculine' traits you reference here? Examples?

Women typically go for dominant, leadership type traits. Evidence of ambition, drive and success. It's even noted physically in the typical desire for "taller men" like. Note conversely that for most men the main - and sometimes the only - driver - is physical attractiveness. Followed by femininity, nurture.

Many guys don't get why the girls are attracted to the loud, flashily dressed guys in their circles, when they know them to be lousy. But women are viscerally drawn by sight as well, just not so much to physical appearance, but appearance of status.

It's why women are always confused as to why their accomplishments don't impress men. Or deem them scared of successful women. Men typically are not checking for that. It's more of a selling point when things are hard or the man is impecunious to a degree. But all things being equal, highly accomplished but unattractive women, will always be behind beautiful and/or young women.

bukatyne:
When you define what you mean by status, we can further from there....

Probably discernible from what I've already posted in response

bukatyne:
And no two people can bear a burden equally and in the same way. Even a mother will not bear the burden of training 2 female children equally and in the same way.

This is about men and women. Their differentials, specialties, the overlap, but how they work best together on the whole, even if there are variations for individual couples.


TV

...by all means muse away. In a sense, that's what we all do up in here. BoboYekini chose red

The emphasis I believe is not on the genus of wood, but on the dryness. Men desire succulent fruit, not timber. And it wasn't a reprimand, or disapproval as such, but a cold, hard, naked (unemotional), piece of advice, based on male female, dynamics and the specifics the OP mentioned.

Muse, digress, ramble and modify all you like. It sure beats the mostly "canned" stuff that seems to prevail here.


TV

...a frontal assault that made my eyes water and a rear end that simply demanded serious time and exploration. Still dabbing my eyes and delighting in my exploration...discovered some things about character and disposition along the way ...I'm a man na wetin .


TV

With a few slight modifications – which are mostly semantic –I can’t say I see very much wrong with the OP.

I stand to be corrected, but I don’t see that OP is saying men are of more worth, or value than women, or even children. What is being said is that in bearing burdens and taking ownership, the greater responsibility and hence authority rests on men.

This history of mankind has not simply been one long uninterrupted timeline of “men oppressing women”, it has been an accord between them– even if imperfect – based with their complimentary differences in mind.

And if it evolves over time, it cannot do so beneficially, if we attempt to do so by ignoring, or trying to override as “constructs”, the hard wired and different, but complimentary natures.

This is clearly borne out by the dynamics of the interaction between the sexes. And first and foremost, and without gainsaying, women are the ones who most stridently push for, and would suffer most, if men despised this mantle.

Most especially in the interpersonal relationships (most notably marriage) between them. Women want men of higher status, men they can look up to and feel secure with.

The push for equality serves to masculinise women and feminise men. Women don’t want men who they don’t perceive as “superior” in status, either in a relative or absolute sense.

Women find it hard to respect – and hence maintain attraction for – men that they see as “equal” or slightly lower in status. Fact. Women don’t want the men that equality produces. Duh!

Likewise. Women taking on overly masculine traits is typically a turn-off for most men. Equality in the terms it is being presented is a lose, lose. Indeed, it’s a lose-lose-lose, as our children will also suffer, not just us.

Under the guise of "equality", most are seeking to wrest away the authority, without sharing the burden. Not that it would work for the best even if they did.

Any woman here that is with a man of equal or slightly inferior status to her should let us know. Along with those who bear the burden equally and in the same way with their men.


TV

ColinAdua:
Singleness is very sweet. I tell you. The feeling of freedom through unattachment alone is banging.

But you have to be open-minded enough to understand and accept that some people may feel exactly the same way about marriage and being attached. Man is after all, a creature made for pair-bonding.

ColinAdua:
I didn't start by denigrating married men. I was pushed into it by married men trying to besmirch singlehood to prove me wrong.

That excuse is shallow and hypocritical, as your whole point has been about people doing what they freely choose - regardless of societal dictates. And here you are, claiming you besmirched marriage and married men because you were made to do so? . You were not pushed into anything. Your very nature made you respond in that fashion.

ColinAdua:
So the Biblical reasons I have been giving you is not yet right enough for you.? Ha!

Denigrating marriage and married men is not biblical

ColinAdua:
Well then, but please don't get annoyed when someone wasn't impressed with your values.

Like I said; they didn't emanate from you, neither are they to impress, or oppress you.

ColinAdua:
Cheers!

Have a great day ahead. Regards


TV

jokepearl:
Taekwondo is barefoot also. (except maybe there is a special kind of sock).The only problem i see in the picture is concrete floor.

...the concrete floor was what I found problematic, not the barefeet


TV

oieda:
Please, what is your view on divorce?
This is irrespective of what you are taught in your religion.
What is your personal belief on divorce?
Put it down here or better still, take an online survey to record your view. . .
https:///forms/xP6HOyliwNUlXwUe2

How can one separate "personal belief" from sincerely held "religious belief"? For me they are one, so I'll pass.


TV

5minsmadness:
Because we copy everything oyibo people do without thinking. It makes us feel good that we are being counted 'among'the civilized.

Oh dear, guess I'm guilty as charged . Unless of course charcoal complexioned me counts as an oyinbo?

The boy get to much energy and can barely sit still. The weekly class is helping him focus and learn to be disciplined. I won't let him spar with these ogbologbo looking Naija Karetekas sha - see as dem dey train barefoot for concrete floor . Anyway he actually does Taekwondo.


TV

^{...@OP, "age appropriate", not "underage".}

ColinAdua:
Because I have a theme in life, HAPPINESS. I like to promote Happiness. Not make people sad. Moreover, I realized I was trampling upon the values you hold very dear. Even though were trampling mine. Okay! Let me add gold medal.


Actually that's what I believe because I keep asking myself; Why would someone be so weak to stay or go into an arrangement he is not enjoying just to please the society.? For the fear of being different, attacked, mocked, cajoled lots of men are going into marriage and calling it necessary evil. Is it not height of weakness? If something is evil be bold enough to stay clear. Whatever will happen let it happen.


For now its making me so happy. When the regrets comes we will know. If not for my aged parents, I would have been so free. Imagine the experience that am only responsible for myself only.

My message is always HE WHO WILL ACCEPT IT LET HIM ACCEPT IT .

There is no way I can glorify the sweetness of singleness without criticizing marriage. Even trauma can drive one to the best decision. The best decision I have ever made in life is to start business. It was necessitated by about 10years of fruitless job search.

Have you forgotten you sometime ago labeled them irresponsible men. What do you mean by being questionable?


Yeah! it does. To distinguish both sexes.

Well, thanks.

Colin, good morning to you sir.

Let everyone make their own scriptural permissible choices with understanding and acceptance of the consequences. If one knowingly chooses and accepts marriage fine, if singleness, then equally fine.

You do well to champion people choosing what's best for them and charting their own course in life once mature and of age, however,
there is no need to denigrate others for their choices.

I am yet to be convinced that you chose singleness for the right reasons. Having said that. It's your choice to make and we all bear the consequences of our choices.

You can't trample on my values, they did not emanate from you. Have a good day. Go in peace.

TV

ColinAdua:
Wow! Great! Sorry TV! My bad. Your children are wonderful and so sweet. Say Hello to them for me.

Glory to God. Wow! Such spirit filled kids, they the joy no wonder your life and happyness revolves around them. Are they releasing a debut soon? I will like to listen

Yeah! She is a beauty. Beauty in the eye of the beholder kind of thing. Did I say she is ugly ? I don't think so. Oh! sorry my bad, she is your damsel and a super model. Thumbs up for landing that trophy.

Why the about turn ? Don't develop a split personality on me. But no gainsaying, my family are fine - even if I say so myself . And don't think I missed that "trophy" comment

ColinAdua:
Okay o! thanks.
But is it wise for me to live this my one time life, in other people's values, virtue and stereotypes, sacrificing my own personal inner peace to please people?? Please answer me.

You are right about that. What is puzzling, and being challenged, is why you declare the choice of others as inferior. Or feel that people that knowingly embrace what you rejected are wrong? Or others as inferior for making their own choices that differ to yours?

If you reject it as not for you, fine. If you knowingly accept it as for you, fine. If you unknowingly accept it or reject it, and then regret, therein lies a problem.

ColinAdua:
No! Really how did I try to break your union? You uploaded a picture to entice me and I told you the first thing that came to my mind. Is it breaking your union? What will I gain if I break your union? Or am I the person that complained that your wife is dulling your reproductive rights? Will it buy me the Jaguar F-Pace if I break your union? Or will it help me grow my business or meet the targets of my foundation?

It has never occurred in my mind to break your union to prove that singleness is better than marriage. Please let's not take it too personal. This is just a thread meant to exchange opinions, believes and facts.

Read with comprehension. No one accused you of trying to break a union. I likened you to the divorcees who champion divorce up and down by advising others do likewise, so they, divorcees, increase in number, and it becomes normal.

You are denigrating marriage and married men. It would be better if you extolled the virtues of singleness and left marriage alone. Your denigrating marriage, married men, women, children and all the particulars, makes it sound like it's trauma that drove you to singleness and not the qualities of singleness in and of itself. Comprendé?

ColinAdua:
All wrong! No problem. But it makes me very happy and its not a SIN.

And I stand and testify the same for marriage. Which is the whole point and difference. I don;t denigrate single and/or celibates. Even if I feel their reasons for opting for singleness are questionable.

ColinAdua:
I am, cos ain't got a pxxxy down there.

Good day.

For a eunuch, does it actually matter

Have a good week ahead.


TV

Dking99:
...Hey I am in a fix right now. The summary of the very long story is this girl who lives with me an carrying my son now was somehow in my life by parental influence.We are living together but not wedded. I assisted her to gain admission and was a family friend but along the line, she surreptitiously endeared herself to my parents. It was obvoius to both of us that there was no love between us but our parets, I mean my Dad and her Mum really wanted us together. I broke up with a lovely friend just to please my dad and relief the subtle pressure from this girl. I went and paid her bride price before we ever had sex. During marriage course, it was clear that marriage built on pity and parental influence was bound to fail. We stopped meanwhile she was already pregnant for me... I made a mistake by trying to please people at the detriment of my happiness. Please how do I wriggle myself out of this situation?

"You are in a fix?" Why won't you be, when you are wussiness personified. A man playing victim? How tragic. You even manage to make "living with me and carrying my son", sound like something that happened whilst you were under general anaesthetic .

You used the word "surreptitious - one I like - but how does one surreptitiously make others endeared to them? What you are doing is shifting responsibility, and using euphemism to label her scheming and manipulative. She did this in conjunction with your parents right?

I wonder about the "lovely friend" you broke up with. She probably dodged a bullet. Hope she realises that. You were never truly committed to her. You brought her up to reinforce your own victim-hood, as opposed to express true remorse for breaking up with her. You weakling.

A man doesn't just "go with the flow", he takes charge and "changes the course", even if it's only of his own life. For crying out loud. And personal happiness that's all about you and your feelings is overrated, if not potentially destructive.. A man takes his place, does his duty, sacrificially if need be. That's what should be the source of his joy.

"Wriggle out". Such juvenile wording and immature thinking. You don't wiggle kan, kan. You face your responsibility - whatever you decide to do - to the unborn child and mother. Start by taking charge and putting others first.

I champion men, not mannequins. Masculinity not it's masquerades .


TV

anitank, hello. In all you have been well advised on this thread. I think it may help to expound a little.

The best piece of advise you received is to "cast your net further". I actually think it's one of a few core pieces your situation requires. You seemed to struggle to comprehend how to do so, with your comment about "juggling more than 2".

Simple, you cut them both loose. Yes, that's right, neither of them at this point meet your specifications for marriage. As such if you proceed with either, you are potentially storing up heartache for yourself.

It is likely to end in a union that is fragile and likely to break, or one in which you'll struggle to be happy, or have to live with the sense that you could have done better, but settled.

You shouldn't need to juggle. Queue potential suitors. What you should do, is set your high mark and spend initial interaction understanding if any potential suitor meets them. If they do not, "CTL" immediately.

Otherwise - and as you are doing now - you are bouncing between unsuitables, are getting used to a "lower quality" (by your own reckoning) man, may potentially marry wrong, and even if you don't commit, you are wasting time while a suitable may pass you by.

Now the second thing I'll touch on - being in a sense more important and a precursor - is you. Yes you. In a way, and putting this as politely as I can, you are not ready to marry. Desirous yes, ready, no.

You need to develop a real understanding of what marriage entails, the core qualities desirable in a spouse, those things that are "nice to haves", things to be overlooked, or considered irrelevant.

It's quite clear you are not there yet. Consider the young man. Do you know that the realisation of the burdens and expectations or marriage can even make a man who is mature and capable panic when they face them starkly?

In fact, cutting him loose, will more likely make him consider his commitment and if he wants to make that step up. If he doesn't, it's better you find out now, then push things to marriage and find out after the fact. This is also why you need to step up, so that you can clearly articulate those expectations to him now, not when it's a done deal.

A man who behaves immaturely and acts like a juvenile (extensive video gaming and social media, when it's not for a living) may well step up when it hits him, but the opposite is much more likely. Beware.

If I were forced to choose (and note my opening), I'd go for the older guy. But you are at present somewhat unappreciative of the qualities he brings. That could lead to discontent and a feeling you could have done better.

Again it's telling that you claim to be attracted to someone who is immature, yet you simultaneously call him nice? Mature attraction is based on quality of character, not "niceness" of person. And one cannot be immature and nice in any meaningful way in a marriage relationship. Unless you are basing that niceness on the "nice to haves" I mentioned.

So to sum;

1. First and forenost, work on yourself - grow up, learn to seek out, appreciate and love the qualities required for the long haul. Not easy, but so beneficial. An almost entire change of mindset may be required. Evolve what you are after, but set a very high mark. Don't doubt yourself or consider settling for anyone not "ball park"

2. Cast your net wider - meet as many as possible, cut to the chase in discerning if they are right for you without coming across as desperate. You can juggle a number if you are merely meeting and acquainting. Ergo, don't throw yourself into relationships head first. That confuses and serves only to tie you down. Tread softly and CTL as soon as you realise there is a deal-braker, or he does not meet your lower (but high ) threshold.

All the very best.


TV

ColinAdua:
My brother please don't console yourself with your own failures by pushing it to me. You posted your kids PICTURES not their school results cos you wants to feed your over blown EGO that your ordinary looking kids will entice me to go and carry bondage.

Oga you only posted their pictures to entice me. And it didn't work. This wailing will get you nowhere. Moreover, that they are plain doesn't mean they are not wonderfully and fearfully made. They are but its only if you are bringing them up in the fear of the Lord.

Awww! Sorry! All this venom because I told you the bitter truth about your kids. You have passed that level now bros. Thank you so much for saying am better than the godless. That little is even so great for me. God will complete the rest by His mercy in Christ Jesus.

Please don't be bitter we are just having some small intellectual challenge. Don't take it too personal na.

You are the person that first mentioned Iphone. I never said anything about IPhone on this thread before you do talk less of assigning holiness and sanctification to them.

Choice can still be superiority. Blessing can be materiality, selfishness still brings happiness ask Nigerian politicians. Opinion can still be fact. It all depends an individual preference. My preference is SINGLENESS no matter what you like called it. Thank you.

Aaaaah! Noooo! This your bride with this large mouth, she might swallow me. I don't want to end up like Jonah.

YOUR HOUSE IS 51 TIMES BETTER THAN YOUR WIFE.

Cheers

My daughter is in Nursery. My son started school in September. Having said that, he is one of only 2, if not the only one, that can properly read and write in his class. And he is sent to the year above for literacy class as a result of how advanced he is. Mapped against his development, my daughter is slightly ahead at this point. Not bragging, just the facts.

And by the way, they both love of gospel music like wetin happen. Come and see; the ones indeed in whom the Spirit of God is. Genesis 41:38 . I am obviously proud, but all glory...

You see beauty in HD - plus she is so humble - and you are foaming . If my wife is ugly and my kids plain, does that prevent you marrying a stunner and having beautiful kids of your own? We can even find you one oyinbo, so that you can have the"mulatto" kids that "move" you

A man tells you he is blessed in his marriage and happy with his family, and you are busy parsing his situation through your jaundiced perspective and lens of bitterness - all to convince yourself, your selfish, cowardly decision is the right one.

I said, you are like some of our resident divorcees - they try and get as many as possible to break their own, or the unions of others, to make it seem good and normal.

And singleness is good and beneficial for the minority that opt for it for the right reasons - yours are all wrong, and your efforts to justify it by misapplying scripture, or by rubbishing marriage and married men is lame.

In my best Chinese accent - "be a man" .

Pix loading


TV

LordReed:
OMG! You guys look smashing, nice one bruv.

As much as it pains me to accept but the truth is we've been casting pearls before pigs. All of this is wasted on this ungracious fellow. I will continue to have my fun though and not take him seriously at all.

Graciás - God is good.

Leave Colin. As in; self aarrogated singleness to pursue material things is better than marriage. How shallow, how misguided. Paraphrasing Apostle Paul "Colin has zeal, but not according to knowledge". Somebody needs to deliver this brother from himself. At least the ladies are safe for now .


TV

^{...shaybebaby, why are you creeping around. And creeping me out . Show yourself. How is little man? Trauma don pass?}

ColinAdua:
One picture would have been enough. But spamming the thread with the pictures of your ordinary looking children made me a bit ashamed.

If she is UGLY I will laugh at you.

I told you its childishness posting my face here. A real man has value and ethics. Somethings are better kept secret. Am too old to succumb to cheap emotional black mail.

Why are you decieving yourself na
You judge my children based on your subjective appraisal of their looks - yet you are happy to proclaim that values and ethics are the real measure of a person, and wanting us to judge you based on those - even if self-proclaimed. like I said, Joker ni e

ColinAdua:
You writes dictionary? Its just an indirect way of politely telling you that your kids are just ordinary and that there are poor kids here that are by far hotter and more beautiful than them(the begging Arab kids). So they ain't got no hold on me. I seeked deliverance yesterday night. .

Again, your arbitrary and subjective - and almost certainly bitterness tainted - appraisal of my children based on "looks". I know they are fearfully and wonderfully made. destined for great things. And beautiful all around .

ColinAdua:
Its a choice. I just don't want to, cos it will not give me inner happiness. SIMPLE.

You come across as little better than the godless I contend with on this forum. Happiness is something one gives, not that one demands. I take back what I said about you being a father - and husband self. Your category is "selfishly-single with a side of bitterness" .

ColinAdua:
Yes! I don't have Iphone cos I don't love it. There are more better, more beautiful and more technical Android devices like XIAOMI MI MIX.

And these are holy and sanctified no ?

ColinAdua:
God is great, awesome and marvelous but that still did change the fact that your children are just plain.

As you confuse choice with superiority, and blessings with materillity, selfishness with happiness, so you misunderstand the difference between opinion and fact. Sorry eh .


TV
^{...my bride, my pride...it's not too late for you Colin...you are just 38'ish}

ColinAdua:
Well, if your kids are not being exposed, why remove their pictures? Why not fill this thread with their pictures then for all I care?

Personally, I need their pictures to actually believe they exist and to see if they are fine. That's all.

Do you ever cease to contradict yourself - you claim to need evidence that they exist, then when I post it you claim I am exposing them. Joker . Wifey pix loading

ColinAdua:
Oh! You think their pictures is peppering me? I have tried to be polite and indirect but let me tell you the honest truth about what I feel point blank since you pushed it.

YOUR CHILDREN ARE NOT FINE. ESPECIALLY THE GIRL.

You also are someones "genetic expression" - lets see how fine you are
One of the things you may never truly experience is the wonder of beauty unfolding in a child. Both my children were born and are being raised in a godly home by parents who love one another. They can't but be beautiful. After being Spirit filled, gifted and blessed.

ColinAdua:
I felt uncomfortable with them like someone spreading his dirty undies in the street, because they are not fine. I have seen children here that dusts them 10 times, even mulattos and they didn't move me.

Not that I personally care, but no one uses the term "mulatto" any more. Do you have an obsession or complex about mixed ethnicity children - to go with the one you have about women . Sounds like a syndrome to me. Seek deliverence .

ColinAdua:
Oga! I love kids. I love their innocence and personal happiness, but they don't move me cos they can't make me act irrational and I don't loose self-control when I see them and I have decided I won't have them.

Very few people truly love kids - most love their own kids. You may never truly appreciate this. And as you have self-control, you'll make a good father

ColinAdua:
See, most of the parents that complain don't even know much about me. They are mostly people I just meet. The ones that knows me that complains does it to make me realise that marriage and children is burdensome so I can prepare well before I enter, not knowing I can't even enter.

And you don't have the strength, love or fortitude to bear burdens do you? We don hear

ColinAdua:
There is no godly and sanctified blessing in spouse and children. THEY ARE FOR WEAK MEN!

Meanwhile, wife and children are still WORLDY MATERIAL THINGS.

Proverbs 18:22 He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives ...
1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified ...
Malachi 2:15 Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit ...
1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctificat...

ColinAdua:
I don't even like IPhone cos you can't get the best from it until you jail break. I have never told you I like IPhone.

Note: Its the highest height of childishness and immaturity for me to even post my face here on this thread talk less of posting my possessions. I don't blow my horn I have passed that little boys level.

Sweet dreams.

Can't post what we don't have can we? Especially is it's what one loves

TV

^{...before and after pictures of my son, my daughter is 2ce as fine. It's what God sees and does Colin, not your korokoro eyes}

youngice:
I love it when people make use of their brains for subjective analysis

A 16 years aged bottle of regal chivas scotch for you

Graciás sir. However I am teetotal. A freshly sueezed juice will suffice. On the rocks of course


TV

LightandDarkness:
The notion that marriage is generally a union between a male and female is inaccurate from the legal and social perspective. Socially, the meaning of marriage varies across cultures however "it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged".

I laugh,you write as if the formalising of same-sex relationships - by redefining marriage - is not a recent novation. Through time and across cultures, marriage has always been the union of a male and female. And it's bare-faced deceit to claim that marriage is merely to acknowledge interpersonal sexual relationships. 1.Please explain why society needs to formally recognise and accord "sexual relationships benefits/protections?

LightandDarkness:
Historically, unions between people of the same sex have always existed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions. Legally, the definition of what constitutes a marriage differs depending on where you are. In UK and Canada a union between people of the same sex is infact a legally recognized marriage, that is not the case in Nigeria.

Stop using nebulous and/or misleading statements. No one claimed same-sex relationships have not been extant for ages. Just that they have never been recognised as marriage - even where they have existed alongside marriage. There have been the odd anomalies or attempts, but it has never been instituted by societal demand or sustained over time. Only re-inforcing the real definition, nature and purpose of marriage - a male and female union.

LightandDarkness:
Again inaccurate, actual sexual activity between animals of the same gender have been documented so its not "normal bachelor behaviours" being misinterpreted (btw are you saying its normal for bachelors of the same gender to have sex with each other lol). In some species even when given the chance to mate with a female the animal chooses a male so it has nothing to do with extreme conditions. Just do some reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals. And also the "laws of nature" don't always apply in every scenario, if science has shown us anything its that the natural world isn't always predictable.

Animals have many behaviours inter-alia killing partners after mating, infanticide, cannibalism. Are these all pointers for humans ? If a dysfuntion occurs across species, does that make it any less a dysfuntion? Or something to be normalised since it is commonly present?

Did you actually read the link you posted?

Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.

The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied.

The term homosexual was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1868 to describe same-sex sexual attraction and sexual behavior in humans. Its use in animal studies has been controversial for two main reasons: animal sexuality and motivating factors have been and remain poorly understood, and the term has strong cultural implications in western society that are irrelevant for species other than humans. Thus homosexual behavior has been given a number of terms over the years. When describing animals, the term homosexual is preferred over gay, lesbian, and other terms currently in use, as these are seen as even more bound to human homosexuality.

Categorising people - or animals - as "homosexual" is at best an error and typically a contrived narrative to legitimise what is nothing more than dysfuntional behaviour. Trying to apply it to animals is even more deceitful, as your link shows, the motivations and impluses are barely unsderstood. Again, point me to the gay buffalo sweathouse, or the same-sex hyena practice of hoofing. No one and nothing is "homosexual".

LightandDarkness:
On average children do better living with two biological married parents however thats an argument against single parenting, even then i still insist that parenting style has a much greater effect on how a child turns out than simply having 2 parents. There is no clear trend suggesting that children raised by homosexual couples do worse than children raised by heterosexual couples.

Yes, it is an argument against single-parenting, but it is even more of an argument for opposite sex parenting - which you try to disguise by referring to "2 parents". So tell us, would 3 parents not be better? And what of 4...ad-infinitum?

Males and females bring unique input by way of strengths, skills, stimuli, response, instincts and a host of other things to raising children. And not least their asymmetric complimentartty

LightandDarkness:
"It's dysfunctional and disease inducing at best, and should not be normalised as equivalent to opposite sex unions, or of public benefit, or worthy of being formalised." Dysfunctional in what way? to children? (if so see above), disease-inducing in what way?

You really need me to spell out the anatomical and psychological pathologies of "homosexual" activity? From the gay bowel syndrome, to heightened domestic violence, to the inability to commit long-term, to increased use of drugs and alcohol, to suicidal ideation etc. etc.

LightandDarkness:
"Sex is not simply sex. And only opposite sex couples can have conjugal, that is, sex of a generative nature. What "gays" do is at best masturbatory." So unless you're having sex to produce children the sex is at best "masturbatory" and at worst? Note that even with opposite sex couples sex isnt always "generative" or aimed at producing children.

You can term whatever activity you wish as "sex". Conjugal sex, coital sex, generative sex is the preserve of opposite sex couples. "Homosexual" masturbation - which is all it can ever be - does not lead to the same outcomes, and demands no warrant for formalisation.

LightandDarkness:
"Marriage simply put is the union of a man and a woman. It's reason is that children would be born with both biological parents in situ, which gives them the best chance of developing into well-adjusted adults at least cost to society and risk to themselves. Bad examples and outliers apart.""As noted, marriage is not to force child-bearing, it's because children are a very possible outcome of a male/female union. Not always, but possible and likely. For same sex couples, it is always an impossibility."

This might be your cultural/religious definition of marriage but as i've pointed out this is not always the case.
Again that is not the primary reason for marriage (see above), many married couples choose not to have kids, many people raise kids with a partner without marrying them and so on. This idea that the social construct of marriage (which is what it is) was created to raise children is very false, there are several reasons for marriage and it isnt a prerequisite for reproduction.

I never said the primary reason for marriage is procreation. The primary reason for marriage - as I noted - is for the optimal circumstances to be in situ should a child appear. Hence, marriage is the union of a male and female - by definition.

Child-bearing is neither forced, nor mandated. Neither does childlessness - by choice or circumstance - change anything. The definition does not include that requirement, but that's what the purpose is. And that is what has served so well for millenia.

"There is no such "right". And it does impose it on all. People are being forced to acknowledge, participate and celebrate such unions regardless of beliefs or conscience. It is being forced into policy, legislation and even into school curricula."

LightandDarkness:
"Sexual orientation and gender identity rights relate to the expression of sexual orientation and gender identity based on the right to respect for private life and the right not to be discriminated against on the ground of "other status" as defined in various human rights conventions, such as article 17 and 26 in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 8 and article 14 in the European Convention on Human Rights."

There is no such thing as a "sexual orientation". It is a practice. Even if it is a preference, it does not demand that other people see it as morsl, healthy, or participate in it's expression. Neither does it have rights to demand we re-engineer society to accommodate it.

Sexuality is a function and some people express theirs dysfunctionally. Wrap whatever narrative you like around that, and formulate as many scientific sounding labels and expressions as you can muster. it doesn't change a thing. 2.Why did you not explain or define the terms orientation or gender? Rather taking them as read?

LightandDarkness:
You dont have to participate or celebrate or even approve, infact you can publicly express your dislike for homosexuals (those are your rights) BUT you have to respect their rights and freedoms as well. Human rights are human rights because they apply to all humans, not one rule for some and a different rule for others.

3. What rights have we ever had for humans that have not applied to those who identify as "homosexuals"?
4. What is it that distinguishes those that identify as "homosexuals" from other humans?

LightandDarkness:
"If love is just love, why is any other type of love wrong. Why can some children not desire sex with adults/ Why are perverts pushing for lower ages of consent and claiming benefits of "inter-generational sex". Yes, it's a slippery slope."

It's clearly not a slippery slope, you are regurgitating an argument i've already addressed.

It's a slippery slope and a discriminatory narrarive. If same sex love is the same and to be treated as opposite sex love, why are other kinds of love not afforded their own set of rights. Why not bestiality, why not paedophilia, why not polyamoury

LightandDarkness:
Use your free time to read more

LightandDarkness

Use yours to understand instead of merely stockpiling ideological narratives - mostly darkness thus far

Respond as you choose, if you choose too, but precisely answering the 4 questions in bold may help cut to the chase.


TV

LightandDarkness:
The purpose of marriage is NOT to produce children, that is the purpose of reproduction. Last I checked you do not need to be married to reproduce and not every married couple desires to have children. Furthermore people dont get married to "complement their biological, physiological and psychological differences" you marry someone because you love them. And this idea that love only exists between same sex is also inaccurate evidenced by the fact that same-sex couples do infact love each other....

False narrative. Marriage was not instituted to formalise "love", whatever the sex of the couple involved. No one has claimed that two people of the same sex cannot love one another (without objectively defining love, or being overly spiritual), but that love, or, a relationship predicated on that love can never be marriage. Marriage is the formal union between a man and a woman.

LightandDarkness:
The definition of natural means it occurs in nature. There are 1500 animal species that exhibit homosexual behaviour, therefore how can you say homosexuality is infact unnatural. Even if you said unnatural means rarely occurs in nature, a lot of traits and behaviours are also rare, it doesnt mean they are inherently wrong. Furthermore nature rarely follows "laws", nature is radom and unpredictable.

"Homosexual behaviour - as you almost rightly term it - does not exist in brute beasts. Nature is not random, or unpredictable. Animals are driven by instinct. And, these cases evidenced as examples of "homosexual behaviour" in animals do not stand scrutiny. They are usually wrongly interpreted normal bachelor behaviours, or due to extreme circumstances or conditions - almost like men turning "gay" in jail. Please show us this buffalo gay bar you spotted on the veldt

LightandDarkness:
There are many single parents who do a great job of raising their children and there are many who do a bad job. The same can be said of children with two parents in their lives. The absence of a father/mother or the presence of two male/female parental figures does not affect how a child turns out as much as the parenting style(s) of the parents in question.

The data - over thousands of years is in and without gainsaying. A child does best with both biological parents in situ. Men and women bring different and unique value to child-rearing. Individual good luck stories, against the odds examples, or outliers do nothing to change this fact.

LightandDarkness:
"Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality." Why would it weaken public morality and basic moral values. So far you havent reeally given a concrete reason why homosexuality is immoral.

It's dysfunctional and disease inducing at best. It affords society no intrinsic benefits, rather it is deletrious, and should not be normalised as equivalent to opposite sex unions, or of public benefit, or worthy of being formalised.

LightandDarkness:
Again no good reason why its morally wrong. "Nature" has no "requirements" for marriage. I've already pointed out how some species exhibit homosexuality behaviour and I will also mention that not all animals mate with with one partner (opposite or same sex partner. What is this biological impossibility? Sex isnt just to procreate; it's also for pleasure and a way to show your partner you care for them. Homosexual couples might not have sex the way heterosexual couples do but sex is sex?. It is a civil right for two consenting adults to be able to have a legally recognised union.

Sex is not simply sex. And only opposite sex couples can have conjugal, that is, sex of a generative nature. What "gays" do is at best masturbatory.

LightandDarkness:
Again the purpose of marriage is not the purpose of reproduction and not every marriage is aimed at having children and not every couple is capable too. The last 2 produce what is a "sterile union" but why is it wrong?, should such couples have their marriage invalidated?.Even if same-sex couples us medical technology to have children why is that wrong? as i've said many same-sex couples do the same. If same-sex couples adopt wouldnt that be a good thing? there are many children produce who have been abandoned and have no homes, if a same-sex union provides them with a good life nothing wrong there.

Marriage simply put is the union of a man and a woman. It's reason is that children would be born with both biological parents in situ, which gives them the best chance of developing into well-adjusted adults at least cost to society and risk to themselves. Bad examples and outliers apart.

LightandDarkness:
"Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage." it's like you keep repeating the same points over and over again. I'm sure everyone gets married primarily for their own happiness. If the main purpose of states recognising marriages was to provide an atmosphere for the upbringing of children then every married couple would be mandated to have children and single parenting would be illegal; I am unaware of anywhere in the world where this is the case.

As noted, marriage is not to force child-bearing, it's because children are a very possible outcome of a male/female union. Not always, but possible and likely. For same sex couples, it is always an impossibility. These relationships do not meet the definition of, or criteria for marriage.

LightandDarkness:
No is forcing you to approve, you are being asked to recognise the human rights of same-sex couples.

There is no such "right". And it does impose it on all. People are being forced to acknowledge, participate and celebrate such unions regardless of beliefs or conscience. It is being forced into policy, legislation and even into school curricula.

LightandDarkness:
This argument about homosexuality leading to acceptance of incest, pedophilia and bestiality is old. One could argue that incest is wrong because it can produce offspring with harmful mutations, even if no children comes from incestuous relationships it could also be argued that it perverts the bond that exists between siblings and parents. Pedophilia is wrong because the sexual activity occurs between an adult who takes advantage of a child who isnt mentally/emotianally/physically mature, and pedophiles who purchase materials depicting pedophilia fund individuals who exploit children for money, essentially sexual slavery of children. As for bestiality, are you comparing the quality of relationships between two humans to the relationship between a human and an animal? :/ this one is generally just weak.

If love is just love, why is any other type of love wrong. Why can some children not desire sex with adults? Why are perverts pushing for lower ages of consent and claiming benefits of "inter-generational sex". Yes, it's a slippery slope.

Use your free time wisely

TV

ColinAdua:
Sorry! Am not concerned. I just imagined that if they are mine kids, I will feel a little uncomfortable with the over exposure. Kinda like unpacking my box on national TV.

Any concern is sorely misplaced as noted. My kids are not being "exposed" to anything, I am merely showing you" their pictures" as you requested. E dey pepper you eh ?

ColinAdua:
Wood? No! I live in a termite infested area. Termites here are out for vengeance seems like they bear chisels, saws on their teeth. You keep fumigating, no way.

I'm sure there are treatments, other than that there are "faux" woods and laminates that present the same look. Anyway, we have wood - downstairs - 'cos it's the best for messy kids. Carpet upstairs.

ColinAdua:
Dont bother! I love kids but they don't move me. Cos I have seen and advised lots of parents here who seem tired of too much disturbance from their kids.

Don't struggle to contradict yourself. What you love does not move you? Please explain your passion for material things then. Is that different to love. And I needn't remind you of the Lords words about little ones - He loved them and was moved by them .

ColinAdua:
I always tell them: if they don't disturb you, is it me they should disturb? When you were conceiving them and licking lips, didn't you know they will disturb you? My friend get up and face what you ordered!

Typically when parents "complain", it's "faux" complaining and storytelling. It's more about not being able to talk about anything else. And probably in your case not to make you feel bad about not having your own family. They were being compassionate - even if wrongly so .

ColinAdua:
I don't want to understand. I want to understand JEHOVAH GOD, MONEY, HOUSES, CARS, DESIGNERS CLOTHS, SMART DEVICES AND SINGLEHOOD!

All that and a wife and children to

ColinAdua:
I pity you people.

Absolutely no reason to. On the contrary, one would wonder why anyone would forego the godly and sanctified blessing of a spouse and children - especially so they could pursue material things like iPhone

Wife pix loading


TV

^{...fell free to post pictures of your motorcars, landed properties, mobile devices, goods and possessions etc.}

ColinAdua:
Sincerely speaking, NO MATTER, what we wants to prove, I believe its WISDOM to protect Innocent children and our private lives by shielding them from unnecessary public exposure and scrutiny.

I think a word is enough for the wise.

I like that your floor. Is it wood or tile? Can I get it here in Nigeria?

Good day.

Their lives are in His hands - but thanks for your concern
I'm not sure what's obtainable, but I'm sure if one has the means, it can be shipped in. Having said that na ordinary wood.

ColinAdua:
Haha! I don dey start. You want more kids, madam says no! Does that make you comfortable and happy? No!
But that's marriage for you. Let me hold it there for now.
In as much as I enjoy those pics, they didn't move me a bit. Cos I see them as a bunch of trouble.
Moreover, I have seen more beautiful kids even Mulattos. In fact, one of my cousins is a mulatto.
Meanwhile, exposing minors on social media wantonly doesn't seem like a wise decision to me.
Sweet dreams!

I would love more kids. In fact, the kind of numbers I have in mind would demand polygamy . But I am grateful and content with what God has blessed me with.

I can show you mixed race kids among my own family if you like. And as for beauty or any other characteristics, these ones are mine and that trumps all. But you wouldn't understand really would you .


TV

LordReed:
Men! I can't wait for my boys to show. Such cuties TV, madam and yourself are doing an awesome job. Gonna update with some pix later.

Thank you. May God grant the righteous desire of your heart. I was made up when TVjnr came along. I told wifey I would like 4 more just like him. Then my official "side chic" arrived, and now I can't imagine not having a daughter - my daughter.

Wifey says we are done - see how she just dey dull my fertility ? Full reproductive rights for men - and indeed we are blessed. There was a time I wasn't sure a wife and kids were in the future for me. Thank God.

Colinadua, you can leave now .


TV

ColinAdua:
I prefer the so called wife in form of HOUSES.

When I saw the picture of your kids, truthfully, what came to my mind immediately was;

"Na a, not me and you, these ones will turn the bedroom and sitting room upside down and inside out within seconds.

And these ones can wake up around 2:00am to ask for tea and bread or noodles".

That's too bad cos I love a very organized quiet place and the easiest way to make me hate you is to disturb my sleep.

Am a chronic introvert, a technician, I read a lot and write often. A light sleeper and sleep late.

So I naturally love a cool calm quiet serene environment.

That's why I live in a rural area even with all the mockeries, ridicule and scorn, but I refused to re-locate to a noisy city.

I love quiet solitary serene environment so much that I have decided to sacrifice having children(I love children) to treasure my cool calm alone time.

Even now that am typing this, that's where am relaxing, enjoying cool evening breeze under the moonlight.

Having a wife does not preclude having a house - and vice-versa. Indeed, having one means you'll most likely get or need the other . As for kids, yes, it is hard work, but it's a joy. Sure it's costly, but it's a blessing beyond measure.

Reedy, I think this has been thoroughly parsed. Na to spam with pictures remain .


TV