₦airaland Forum

Mindfulness:
What are you still doing in the country where moral decay is the order of the day and the society about to break down - according to your prophecy - when you are free to move to the country of your ancestors? I wouldn't expose my children to such an evil environment as a loving and caring parent.
And since you have said the following:
We can agree to agree.

Like I said .


TV

crackhaus:
Lawd have mercy, on whose authority is it to structure marriage based on commitment level?
Religion or Government?

You agree that marriage is entered voluntarily, why then should anyone be sanctioned for voluntarily choosing to cheat on someone he/she voluntarily married?

You have the right to marry voluntarily but you have no right to cheat voluntarily - according to whom?

The question please

TV

crackhaus:
Lol, you are like you would call Mindfulness, a dribbler of sorts...

Perhaps, but my mazy runs lead to end product. it's why Pappilo will always rank higher and won more than Jay-Jay.

crackhaus:
;DFirst, you ask me to list another way by which well-adjusted productive individuals can be raised...I do (more than one no less.) Now you're asking me to tell you which of them all is the optimal as regards to raising such individuals.

Listing virtues or attributes, is no the same as listing relationship types or family forms. The attributes can exist in any form or type, but the form or type make a difference - ATBE.

crackhaus:
Well I'm gonna give an answer to this dribble, just so you don't turn that and use it as a basis for your next response.

[b]There is no optimal way by which well-adjusted, healthy, and productive citizens will be raised.
[/b]There is no rule/law laid down or stated that satisfies a postulation to that fact, not even by God and most certainly not by man or alien as the case may be.

And here you are factually incorrect. Marriage is and remains the optimal way. Backed up in every which way, and from every perspective, with raw unassailable data. In absolute and comparative terms. Anything else is just gainsaying. And yes, I believe it was laid down by God, and if entered in,and adhered to as He commands, it won't be just optimal, or the simply the best, it will be perfect.

crackhaus:
At best, what you have are pure subjective opinions - like you for example, who believes that marriage is optimal. What you don't seem to grasp however is that everybody will not live by this same principle when it comes down to a choice between 'long-term peace of mind' and 'staying married just because someone believes it's the best way to raise well brought up productive children'.

Marriage (as defined) as the optimal form is not subjective, as stated above. That's no to say I don't appreciate that there are some who will not be able to understand or embrace it in it's fullness, or others that will enter into it and fall short.

crackhaus:
And oh, I put something in bold up there in your quote for you.
Since you already knew and was willing to type that, I don't know why we're still having this argument or why there was even an argument on that account in the first place.

I fully acknowledge other relationship forms and family types,and that they can raise well-adjusted and productive children. But as stated marriage and its outcomes remain superior.

To personalise it, someone would have to convince me that my children would be just as well - or better - off if I swapped their mother for another woman, or a man, and vice versa. Or or if both of us where out of the picture and they were raised by just anyone, in any combination, or family setting.

Does there have to be a reason . It was mostly because I wasn't even getting scraps from Mindfulness and her cohort. I hope whatever she has doesn't rub off.

TV

Mindfulness, really? Is that the best you can do !

So, because you can find examples of some children being treated horribly by their parents and within marriage, that means

1. marriage is a bad institution?
2. the same parents would not have acted thus if they weren't married?
3. children in other family types or relationship forms do not suffer at the hands of their parents?
4. that the data - tons of it - clearly showing that the optimal setting for children is marriage as defined is wrong?
5. you lack the intelligence to understand that you don't build case or make policy based on exceptions - this one is rhetorical

And one who hates epistles resorts to them, yet devoid of anything meaningful If you mean to be an epistleer, you need to bring content and depth.

Like I said


TV

crackhaus:
All I have said is, "I believe in marriage and I believe that it is good, but don't create laws that will coerce/force me into remaining in one that no longer has a happy future". - I am not infallible, you are not infallible, TV01 is not infallible, Stillfire is not infallible... who died and made it a rule that all of us will love and stay true to the same person for the rest of our lives?

Do you all prefer staying married to someone who is only in it because he/she doesn't want to go to jail or pay a fine?

Yea, didn't think so.

The law does not force anyone to do anything. Marriage is entered into voluntarily. And one is always made aware of the consequences of breaching the contract. And yes, we can discuss the detail of the consequences, but there must be sanctions.

So that brings us to this point; you believe in marriage, but not in sanctions for marriage. Please answer this question;

How would you structure marriage, so that it would deliver the same benefits, not have any "coercive" penalties for breaches, and at the same time retain it's honour and prestige, and be materially different from any other relationship type?


TV

Stillfire:
I think the problem here is that we have different definition of what marriage is.
Civilizations were built on marriage. Kingdoms and empires were/are strengthened through marriage. Marriage is greater than the fickleness we have ascribed to it.
Butterflies in your stomach under the definition of hollywood love (not bliblical love) in marriage is just an added bonus to the institution.
I am not getting married because of butterflies in my belly, but to build my empire and raise healthy, viable, well adjusted offspring under the auspices of mother and father.
Fortunately and unfortunately the world is now liberal to encourage 'cohabitation' and other forms of queer relationships.
My question now Must people with a tendency to be capricious and fickle get married?
If one is that fickle concerning their emotions, shouldn't one save himself/herself by not getting married at all?
See there will be the option of divorce, but you will be fined for it.
If you go against the tenets of what marriage predicate, you should be sanctioned and fined for it.
Or don't get married.

School dem Stilly.

To think of marriage of primarily, or solely an articulation of ones emotion or feelings - whatever called and however articulated - is to totally misunderstand marriage. Especially when such feelings are at once romanticised and arbitrary (and fickle) in many instances.

Although in it's divine simplicity - I believe - it is also the best structure, for true and committed love between a man and a woman. And, and, it still of utmost relevance that the emotions of adults do not have to be structured via marriage. People are free to feel, or not feel without marriage.

Making a virtue of the feeling and not the institution is to put the cart before the horse. As feelings are at best arbitrary, then everyones feelings must be equally validated - voilá "gay marriage", and every other form of relationship one can imagine.

The institution is honoured, it's strictures and benefits understood, it's framework solid and unchanging. Peoples feeling can be whatever they want them to be, and they can do whatsoever they please with them. Not so marriage.


TV

crackhaus:
Lol, now that I'm on the opposing side I seem to get why some of these females come down hard on you as regards arguments on marriage

I am a marriage advocate , I don't argue people, I argue policy, and in a sex-blind manner. I go hard on silly, unsubstantiated, ill-thought out and incoherent positions, be they from male or female - although thinking about it ...anyway, we thank God for Stilly

crackhaus:
This is what you're not getting - there isn't any in-lieu of anything...lol.
Marriage in its most pure and gracious form can raise well-adjusted productive citizens, this doesn't make it the only way to do so.
Does it mean that people who (through no fault of theirs) come from a broken home never turn out productive?

You are almost there. The question was what is , ATBE, the optimal way to raise children. My position is that without doubt, no gainsaying, marriage as defined is.

That is no to say there are no other family types or domestic arrangements. Neither is it to say that well-adjusted and productive citizens can't be raised that way. However, drawing on good exceptions from non-marriages, or bad outcomes from marriages, does not change a thing.

The reason marriage has - across cultures and through time - has arisen, and endured, been accorded honour and status, and backed by legislative fiat is due to it's benefits. No other form comes close.

Unless you have anything to add, I'm willing to rest on that first point.

crackhaus:
What you're doing here is taking the argument to another dimension altogether, a tangent of correlations that don't fit snugly into how this started between stilfire and I.

The argument is this:
People should be sanctioned for breaking their marital vows, and I say NO...people needn't be coerced into staying true to their marital vows.

Your point here is a non sequitur, as I've explained. Even if we view marriage as purely a civil contract - which I do not, but will for the sake of the discussion - there is no contract where breaching the terms of the contract is non-actionable. Or to put it another way, a contract wherein it is illegal to sanction breaches, has to be an illegal contract ab initio.

Where there is no law, there is no transgression. If breaches (transgressions) are not actionable, then there is in truth no law (contract).
(more on coercion in another reply)

crackhaus:
Now the answer to your question in bold:
Marriage is indeed the bedrock of society - this statement while still true today, isn't quite encompassing.
Society has learnt that education, exposure, enlightenment, and even peaceful coexistence within a community are all capable of a whole lot of wonders, including but not limited to, raising well-adjusted and productive citizens.

And again, please explain how - outside marriage - all these virtues, ATBE, raise well-adjusted, productive citizens, at least as well as marriage.

crackhaus:
Since you're a Christian, I guess I must also let you know that being full of grace and blessed by God is also a way to become well-adjusted, productive, and an all-round better person in society.

Absolutely. I can personally testify to that. Nevertheless, not everyone is, or becomes, a Christian in or from their formative years. And the blessing of marriage are not restricted to Christians.


TV

Mindfulness:
There is no 'in lieu'. It's about options.

You can dribble for days

Please answer the question. You have clearly stated that marriage on and of itself has no bearing on the well-being of a child. Fine, all we ask is that you show us which type of family setting - if any - is best for raising children.

Almost 24 hours now, and despite "coat tailing" and a tremendous amount of waffle you have made no in-roads into what should be an exceedingly simple question for you to answer.

Indeed your best answer has been "not too drink too much fizzy drink" . Just when I think you can't plumb any lower . What are these options that are, ATBE, as good as or better than marriage?

You have just the one trick; prating that the West is more technologically advanced than Nigeria, ergo, we should adopt and/or accept everything they do wholesale and without question.

Did you know that one of the reasons they were able to advance - as part of adopting Judeo-Christian morés - was monogamous marriage? Which helped establish, strong families, incentivised men, giving them a long-term stake in society' flourishing? Think about that as you keep shouting for Africa to "ape instead of emulate".

I could go on and on, but how has been shown repeatedly, despite your bombast, and ability to run at pace with the ball, there's nothing there really is there

Mindfulness:
However, thank you very much TV, you have helped me make my point.
It is not that much about who as it is about the how.

Mindfulness, you have no point, or at best,your point is always you . And in a way, no one actually cares. What saddens is the unthinking manner people like you are willing to willfully overturn societal norms and desecrate beneficial institutions just to make yourself happy.

Afterall, one of your cohort actually wanted me jailed, and just because I argued that the best setting for raising children was within the committed relationship of their biological parents. And the best form of committed relationship - backed by reams of data - is marriage

No loving and invested mother can ever say it's not about the "who". She'll always know it's about that primarily, as well as the "what", the "why", and the "how". But like I said earlier, it's all about your situation isn't it? I don't have to ask you any questions, it's writ large

Mindfulness:
In this sense, even Harry Potter can do this job if he can do it properly.

Like I said.


TV

MRBrownJ:
what has one got to do with the other? why dont you also bless the day they conceived that child while you are at it.... having a child is NOT a blessing as many unfit mother can have one and subsequently kill that child. if that is indeed a blessing in your world, then fair enough.

Birth is the precursor to raising. And if they want to bless every procreative act they engage in, and rejoice every time they consummate their union, why should that lead to humbuggery on your part !

MRBrownJ:
you seem to be mistaking here, YOU are the one questioning MY way of thinking as YOU are the one who quoted me trying to enforce some blessing here from my part. so next time, keep your opinion to the THREAD, if you have nothing to say, and dont quote me. so far as i know each and everyone of us are entitled to our opinions, whether they fit into your religious beliefs or not.

Dude you need a shiny mirror - you questioned the basis of their rejoicing - not even at least bothering to congratulate them first. What right do you have to do that? And if you come up on to the webz and have an opinion, I am at liberty to have an opinion on your opinion - and quote you to my hearts content - feel free to have an opinion on that

MRBrownJ:
bwaaaaaah! i have honoured Harry Potter for whatever he has created on earth.... whoever you honour is up to you.

Agreed - and whomsoever they honour is up to them

MRBrownJ:
i dont need to prove anything, YOU do, because as far as i am concern, thats the work of fertility treatment, and YOU are the one who came up with BS god. i dont have to prove anything to you as YOU are the one trying to discredit the fantastic doctors and their fertility treatment.

Well shove your concern as far as you can. It does not translate to facts. And even if it is the work of fertility treatment, that does not preclude praising God as I explained earlier.

MRBrownJ:
i love NL and its posters who think they are smart and try to switch issues around as if we were kids. YOU wrote that my post have been questionable, YOU are the one who expect my post to conform to your thinking.... so YOU are the one with a problem here and AGAIN, as much as you are entitled to your opinion, i certainly wont conform to whatever YOU think is right. so stop trying your novice reverse psychology on me.

Come, come, what you did up there can hardly be described as thinking now can it . And no, I don't expect anything you say to conform to my dictates. likewise, those blessing and rejoicing God cannot be expected to kow-tow to yours. Comprendé?

MRBrownJ:
giving ones opinion is still allowed, last time i check.... and NO, i certainly wont conform to whatever you think is questionable. thank you very much. all praise to Harry Potter

And I gave mine - so why you belching Now, stop posting as one disturbed, and go back to posting your normal flotsam so I can go back to ignoring you


TV

Mindfulness:
It goes without saying that their first and foremost job is to cater to their children's basic needs.
Children should be on a balanced diet without fizzy drinks, too much salt and sugar, for instance.
Children should get to sleep enough and have regular times.
Children should be taught to be friendly and polite.
Children should be taught to express themselves.
Children should feel loved and respected so that they can respect others.
Children should feel secure and that they can trust their parents.
Children should be allowed to play and get enough fresh air. They must move.
Children should be nurtured intellectually.
Children should be discouraged from spending too much time in front of the TV.
Children should be free to explore their talents.
Children should be supported in the development of a healthy self-esteem.
Children should learn not to do unto others as they don't want to ....

None of what you wrote up there requires parents at all does it? A house-help or tutor could do all of this. Mindfulness, in lieu of marriage what is the best setting for raising children. I mean come on,before the advent of TV and fizzy drinks nko .

Mindfulness:
No no TV, I believe that a HEALTHY marriage is a VERY GOOD way to raise kids, not a marriage that is forced and a torture as a result.

Yes Mindfulness. I have clearly stated that marriage is the best way/model for raising kids. You clearly disagreed. Even here, claiming it's a very good way, not the best. Don't backtrack. What - in lieu of marriage - is the best model for raising kids. Outline it please.


TV

Mindfulness:
It is the shared responsibility of parents and the society as a whole with parents having more responsibility.
Parents do their job as best as they can and the society provides free high quality education and laws that protect children from abuse and neglect.

If by "society" you mean state, I'm happy leave that for now. So,
1. what is the parents "job"
2. and what does "parents doing their job as best they can entail"

Mindfulness:
You don't have to be and remain married to raise your children in a decent way.

Please leave marriage out of this. I accept you don't consider a stable committed marriage of the childrens biological parents to be the best way. I want to understand what you think is.


TV

Mindfulness:


I am actually proud of my creativity that was inspired by your strong desire to control that could be replaced by your trust in the Almighty and that ALL IS WELL.


All I know is this, making people stay together by force will SELDOM - if at all - help children. It will rather have the reverse effect.

Couples should have easy and cheap access to counseling and if all efforts fail, they should be guided through the divorce process in such a way that they are enabled to cooperate in the best interest of their children.

Good education is another factor that can contribute to not only a healthy development of children but to a sensible approach to life by their parents.
The elimination of poverty is another factor that is important in the greater scheme of things.

Divorce per se is not a guarantee that children will turn out bad and marriage per se is not a guarantee that children will turn out good.

I though I was the epistleer . Answer the question, with help if required. You have stated marriage is no gaurantee - implying that it is not ATBE the best way. Fine, no problem;

In lieu of marriage how does society go about optimising the long-term raising of well-adjusted, healthy and productive citizens.

Abi you want to keep us entertained doing "keepy-uppy"


TV

MRBrownJ:
more NONSENSE from deluded people who think that having a child is a blessing.... raising a child PROPERLY is the real blessing, as we certainly know that many unfit mothers are having kids and throwing them in garbage bin and gutters.

So if "raising a child properly is a blessing", the child will not be born before being raised . And the birth of child - cannot be celebrated in it's own right until it is properly raised .

And I am happy for "my way of thinking" to be questioned. What about yours? What gives you the right to determine who is an unfit mother. Or father for that matter. What are your credentials? Is there anything here to suggest the couple in question are not?

MRBrownJ:
well if that is the case then it is equally that "god" who gave man the ability for abortion, yet are you not against it because it doesnt fit your selfish religious agenda?! abeg!

Why get your knickers in a twist, rather than reason rightly. If a gift is used for good, is the giver not to be honoured? and if it is used - contrary to the givers desire - for bad, is the giver to be blamed?

MRBrownJ:
it was created by the man above, in the sky called Harry Potter.... everyone knows that! but hey, if you have any proof that it wasnt created by Harry Potter and instead by "your" God, then i sure would like to hear that.

And if you have proof for how it was done, we'd appreciate your spelling it out. But in lieu of anything you have to offer, let others rejoice ion their own way. You see your belligerent and sweaty funk was uncalled for.

MRBrownJ:
sorry if i dont conform to your way of thinking

Hypocrite. Are you not bug-eyed because this story does not conform with yours

MRBrownJ:
all glory to Harry Potter too, right?

If that's who you worship, good for you, but don't rain on other peoples parades - because they don't conform .


TV

Mindfulness:
How about castrating some individuals that we don't regard as fit to raise well-adjusted, healthy, productive individuals?
And how about installing cameras in our homes so that we can make sure that children are actually raised and not parked in front of the TV for hours?
And how about implanting chips under the skin of married people so that their spouses can monitor where they go and for how long?

That is, I am utterly bereft of answers to a simple question, so I am going to dribble around aimlessly and fight as one who beats the air. Mindfulness, always on form

Such a simple question and you can't make the slightest headway - better call the marines


TV

raumdeuter:
Stillfire

I like/love you yesterday, I dont like or love you today. Why should I be punished for my feelings?

Would it be better to suppress my feelings and just continue in it even if I am sad everyday?

Absolutely, you are free to love whomsoever you please, for as long or as short and, as much or as little as you like, and in whatsoever manner you choose.

And indeed, your love, be that an emotion or an action, as long as it remains, will not be prompted, validated or enhanced by marriage, so how would you be punished if your love diminishes or ceases, or simply chooses to perch elsewhere?


TV

crackhaus:
Lol, you TV01 have always been an ardent proponent of the sanctitiy of marriage as a lifetime commitment...but this isn't how every body will see it.

I, like you, am a believer in 'till death do us part', but what you're implying by question number 1 is that the only way society can have well-adjusted, healthy, and productive citizens is ONLY by policing and implementing the family unit in its most traditional form, ergo "man, woman, children, and everyone lives happily ever after - this here is exactly why sanctions on infidelity won't work, because there will be no happily ever after in a marriage that is held together not because of genuine love but only because someone wants to avoid sanction (jail time/fines).

At the end, you still end up raising unhappy and unproductive citizens who are maintaining their family unit only because they want to avoid jail.
People can't be forced to keep loving and staying with someone they would rather not be with.

I have not argued for the unimportance or worthlessness of marriage, my argument is that one can't be forced to remain in it.
Raising productive citizens is not tied to marriage.

I am not implying anything, the question was clear - in lieu of marriage how does society go about optimising the long-term raising of well-adjusted, healthy and productive citizens.

Just a concise treatise please. Answer the question without recourse to marriage. Or as my day used to say when he was grilling me about my misdemeanors "tell me what happened, and don't mention anyone elses name" .

Like I said, no problem with anyone disdaining or eschewing marriage, but please tell us what you would replace it with. This point first. Surely it can't be that hard .


TV

crackhaus:
This is because the person who was cheated on is not disenfranchised until the marriage is dissolved and that person becomes unable to move on smoothly (financially) with his/her life - this is what the law seeks to protect.

So if vows of life-long fidelity are taken by the couple, and one breaks that vow, you would view that as 1 party having done no wrong, and the other having suffered no loss?

crackhaus:
While in the marriage however, you can't say that because someone was cheated on, then he/she has been disenfranchised.
No one has died from disappointment and heartbreak...no 'normal person' at least.

So in the breaking of an agreement, unless death ensues, there has been no breach

This will be over before my journey home.




TV

Mindfulness:
Since Crackhaus is very good at presenting his points - which I fully support in the context of this thread - in a concise but clear way, I will let him go first and add my two cents later.

TV

crackhaus:
Answer:
By living in a fool's paradise and deceiving one's self in broad summer daylight.

Mindfulness:
Indeed.

Fine. The defence rests We will no longer defend marriage as we have outlined it. Now demonstrate that you have the strength of your convictions and clear logic for your views.

Please tell us, how, in the absence of marriage as we've outlined, how best;

1. society goes about optimising the long-term raising of well-adjusted, healthy and productive citizens
2. contains the feral...
3. particularly keen ...

I actually have 3 questions at the very least, but so as not to conflate things, or drag ourselves all over the shop, please start with the 1.

I'm throwing this open to all. I'm even willing to face sanctions if you present logical, clear, qualitative and compelling positions.


TV

Mindfulness:
The argument outlined by Stilly and supported by TV is that 'A dysfunction in marriage, translates into the larger society and may affect ME in the process, when the sons and daughters of these dysfunction start manifesting.'

The argument outlined by Stilly and fully supported by TV is also backed up by numerous longitudinal studies on families, their dysfunctions and the consequent social pathologies.

Whatever you like to think, the truth is that marriage only makes sense with regard to children. You yourselves argue that very thing when you can't see why people should be able to enter and exit relationships at will.

And in lieu of children you are in a sense correct. Why would anyone want the government to involve itself in their intimate affairs?

The only reason they get involved is because they see the long-term benefit of shoring up and privileging marriage. There are a whole host of benefits and reasons why they do this. Any relationship that is not marriage can be regulated by a legal agreement the couple agree on.

The arguments Stilly and I make, are not to prohibit change per se, but to challenge if the change is based on good and brings good outcomes.

And the truth is, all the change I see presented is based on "selfish adult desire", as opposed to the best long term interests of vulnerable children. And the outcomes are not foreseeable good in the long-term.

All you have to do is show otherwise. And to be frank, talk of personal happiness and pursuing dreams sounds base and trite. Those things could be pursued without endangering our collective future.

Mindfulness:
How will treating your spouse like a criminal make your family more functional?

Think broader, deeper, and longer-term. As Stilly says, it's not about any individual. Just as a contract without sanctions for breach is absurd, marriage that is bespoke to each couple is meaningless and pointless.

Mindfulness:
This is the height of confusion, I swear.

No, your position is the height of unthinking selfishness.


TV

crackhaus:
On a more serious note though,
Are those laws even implemented?
Like people go to jail for committing adultery? Honest questions..

Mostly not. Where such laws are still on the statute books, they tend not to be implemented. Other states/jurisdictions that had them have decriminalised them - wasn't one of the Koreas cited here a while back?

My position remains; even if you view marriage as a civil contract - as opposed to a covenantal union - if there are no sanctions for breach;

1. it is pretty worthless, not actually worth the paper it's written on. And they used to say "...it's just a piece of paper".

2. It cannot be taken or entered into with the sobriety required. It will hence be exited without due consideration.

3. And all that is well and good as far as it goes, but will it still deliver the benefits? And if it doesn't what will? What will be the possible negative effects. Sow in the wind and reap in the storm...


TV

Stillfire:
Masculinist ko, Michael Jackson ni. I would rather use the phrase more conservative than liberal when it comes to morality. As of now, marriage/family is the bedrock of any society. A dysfunction in marriage, translates into the larger society and may affect ME in the process, when the sons and daughters of these dysfunction start manifesting. So anything to penalize these dysfunctional people is fine by me.

Funnily enough, the bolded is one of my big concerns. I know what is right, but children who grow up with this type of thing "normalised" will have a difficult time grasping why.

I can refrain, remove and even inure myself to a great degree, but kids who are raised seeing this in every facet of social life - even school curricula - will have a hard time seeing it as wrong.

I spend so much time socialising my son about natural families and their rightful structure. He knows his family tree 2 generatiosn back and what all the relationships are termed . I've even started to assiduously court a number of families of "the right kind", hoping that long-term they will have great choices to hand, or at least decent models if they decide to look further afield.

The thing is driving me to prayer and to church ! How will I respond if one of mine brings home someone with 2 daddies ?. I can't even countenance single parents sef. Inculcating that bigotry right now.

My neighbour - a single woman - had a daughter via IVF all by her lonesome. Two months before we had ours How would they potentially not grow up best of mates. I had kuku developed one kin' antipathy for the woman longest time. Imprecatory prayers abounded...na so she just move house...when we saw the for sale sign...ah, come see thanksgiving .

The Bible is true. Unless God cuts short the time, even the elect will be deceived. Come quickly Lord Jesus...Maranatha.


TV

MRBrownJ:
NONSENSE!!!! God or fertility treatment gave them triplets?!l

Bro', whatever the way and to whomever attributable, surely you should first rejoice with them on their blessing . Secondly, is it not God who gave man the ability to devise fertility treatment? Thirdly, whatever men can, will or have devised, I'm yet to hear of any creating reproductive organs from scratch - and out of nothing .

A few of you posts have been highly questionable of late, is all ok ?

And finally, all glory to God....hallelujah!!!!!!


TV

lezz:
And how does your bellowing bear on the issue here, eh?

Are you seeking to justify homosexual adoption with heterosexual rape ?

I've read the post a number of times and simply couldn't figure out where to start in response. Na so I bail 0 . Genius really. Sapped the appetite for a fight right outta me. And that's saying something.


TV

It's a genuinely tough one...feel for you bro',you sound so sincere, and committed to marriage. In the first instance, I actually agree with her - a newly married woman deserves privacy with her husband if at all possible.

You are equally committed to your family - and fulfilling your duty as elder and patriarch, I troway salute. At this point your family comes first, but if you decide to marry her, then she does.

I don't see how you will reconcile this unless she gives ground. And if she doesn't and you go ahead, it will only worsen after the formalities. What you are seeing is only the tip of the iceberg.

Indeed, even if she agrees now, she can change, and I suspect she has an aversion to a closeness between you and your blood relatives that will surface long-term whatever the situation.

At best you may be able to arrange a long-term solution whereby they stay with someone else, and you give financial support. I wonder if this will go down well with her. I suspect she will not be happy for your money to be utilised in that way either.

Does she have any competing responsibilities/demands from her own family? Finally I will caution you to think hard about this. Are there other things that give you cause for concern. Don't let this issue blind you to other things, there may well be some.

I'm not comfortable with this one. Seek Gods face if you believe.


Best wishes
TV

crackhaus:
One cannot enter a contract that negates one's civil right to desire an out - this be the crux of the matter.

If that was the case with marriage, then marriage itself would be illegal. Whatever the right or freedom is, one wilfully decides to forego it to enter the marriage institution. It's only voidable if under-age, non-consensual, to closely related, or unconsummated

crackhaus:
As far as sanctions go, isn't this where spousal settlements and child support come in?

Exactly - why I said it didn't have to be jail or fines per se. Jail time is not that common for what are considered civil, as opposed to criminal offences. Often it would be of little value, or even negative in some cases. Nobody likes jailing mothers.

So back to my example. With fault divorce, anyone who decided to up and leave for no valid - AAA - reason - would be penalised in the settlement. Now a man can build himself up, marry a woman with nothing, then if she decides to "pursue happiness", she can take his kids, his house, and hefty childcare payments. And still frustrate his efforts to spend time with his kids. He can lose his wife, assets, kids, and still face jail if he doesn't pony up. Altogether worse than jail and fines in my opinion.

Funnily enough, in 90% of cases the wife gets the kids. In the other ten, it's often another - grandparents etc. - so fathers rarely get custody. It's considered in the childs best interest to be with their mother, although it's a confusing ideology, as apparently women add nothing of distinct value and 2 men could do the job just as well .

crackhaus:
These are already the sanctions that would apply to breaching the contract of marriage...and not just on the breaching per se, but only after filing for divorce on that account.

I am always happy for reconciliation. But fines and jail do come into play. Bigamy for instance. And for someone who commits adultery with a married person and seduces them away, a hefty fine for the 3rd party for jointly home-wrecking, as we saw on one thread earlier, is great in my opinion.

With no-fault divorce, there are essentially no sanctions, and men usually draw the short straw. It actually triggered MRA in the West.

crackhaus:
What stilfire proposes however, is a situation where the defaulter is made to pay fines for cheating on his/her spouse, not the usual paying of spousal support after the fact following a divorce...and for such a proposition, it is purely unrealistic.

In a way it's the same when divorce is based on fault, as the offending spouse is punished via the settlement. With no fault-divorce, there is incentive for the party that the law favours in dvorce to end the marriage. That happens to be women for now - hence the up to 80% of divorces being initiated by them.

Anyway, it's good to see that Stillfire is a "masculinist" .


TV

crackhaus:
Are you for or against stillfire's idealism on the proposition that infidelity on the part of a man/woman should be treated as breach liable to jail terms/fines?

Yes and yes but... Yes it's a breach and yes there should be sanctions, but they can be foregone if there is reconciliation, and they don't necessarily have to be jail time or financial, but in some case they can be.

crackhaus:
If yes, how is this not a breach of one's civil rights/freedoms?

As I've stated, if the sanctions from breaching a contract are illegal/unenforceable, then the contract itself has to be void from the get-go. Again, one cannot enter into a contract that negates ones civil rights or freedoms. For this premise to hold, then marriage itself cannot be a thing.

crackhaus:
If no, then I don't understand your entire response, particularly because not all contracts require a fine/jail term if breached...and this doesn't make them any less 'a contract'.

As I explained to Mindfulness above, sanction does not just mean jail time or fines - although they can in some instances be translated as such. Indeed, civil cases rarely result in jail time. It's about fines for losses suffered or other suitable means of redress.


TV

Mindfulness:
TV01, with all due respect, you sound like a broken record. It's sooooooooo booooooring.

When you bring something new, you'll hear something new .

Mindfulness:
Let me sit down and wait for Crackhaus.

That makes 2 of us. Need better convo jor


TV

Mindfulness:
If you need laws to control and punish your partner in case she steps out of the line, then you don't trust her and you need legal support to soothe your fear in case she won't.

Marriage does not assume a "stepping out of line" - divorce does that. And I have no fear of anyone leaving me - believe that. Entering rightfully into marriage - without a pre-nup - requires, nay, demands trust, hope and rightful expectations - ab initio.

The sanctions are first and foremost to shore up the institution, and secondly to ensure that divorce does not profit the instigator, which it does now, with no-fault, and laws favouring women.

Mindfulness:
It is bondage once you demand punishment for someone who re-considers his choice for whatever reason. People should commit because they want and not because they are forced to. It beats my imagination how anyone would want to be with someone who stays with them by force.

Make the right choice to begin with. A lifelong commitment is not to be entered into lightly. Other relationship forms are freely available, avail yourself of one that most matches the desire to leave at any time and for any reason. The legal benefits can all be contracted separately.

Mindfulness:
People do not always agree on whose fault it was that led to the marriage break-down so they will try to prove that it wasn't their fault but the other person's, which in result will lead to a very messy divorce, the washing of dirty linen and ultimately to means that do not justify the purpose.

Nope. Civilly, Divorce was allowable for the 3 A's - abuse, abandonment and adultery. For those to be justifiable, it will be clear who is at fault.

It is not messier than no-fault case, as in truth, if you want a divorce for any reason whatsoever, it must be because you fault your partner, no? The term "no-fault" itself is an oxy-slowpoke.

If spouses can't debate fault - which there should be little need to, they will re-focus and argue settlement, which they wouldn't have to do if fault were established.

It may refocus energy at to a different aspect, it does not dissipate the hurt, rage or bitterness. Indeed, regardless of how you couch it, that was never the intent of NFD. It was to ostensibly allow a small number of women to escape horrible marriages without too much exertion.

Now something like 80% of marriages are instigated by women usually to "pursue happiness", or "find themselves", or "be true to their hearts", for which they are typically awarded, the kids, the house and lots of free cash. Tell me you won't be bitter if that happens to you or yours? No fault legally maybe, but there will be much blame and recriminations between the parties.

In any event, I care little for the nuances of divorce, as it is not a feature in properly constituted marriages.

Mindfulness:
I would much rather go for a peaceful arrangement than a war even if it was me who was wronged. I would much rather maintain a friendly relationship with the father of my child than have a compensation that would destroy any friendly relation, which would make matters even worse for my child in the long run.

Why does it have to be messy because there is fault? Or not messy because it is processed under no-fault rules. So one party will not/cannot be bitter if their spouse decided to leave for no justifiable reason? And you called me idealistic ?

Mindfulness:
So are unhealthy relationships and at times even more unhealthy.

That is the plaintive whine of one who puts themselves first. Kids do better even in a household with a low level of conflict, than in a divorce situation - fact!

Mindfulness:
I am yet to see people who divorce based on a whim.

But you postulate it as a necessary feature of marriage

Mindfulness:
What compensation do you want the wronged party to receive?

It factors into decisions on custody, childcare payments, etc.

If a woman wants a divorce because she met a nice man on holiday or to "pursue happiness", even though her husband has done no wrong, he should have custody if he so desires, and he shouldn't have to pay her anything if his income is much higher than hers. He should also get priority over the house.

Mindfulness:
And therefore nobody should be forced to remain in a marriage.

Nobody is forced to enter into it. Nobody is ignorant of the lifelong nature of it. Nobody is forced to eschew alternatives. You have no point here. It's simply wilful, and an attempt to make your assertion a fact - it's not.

Mindfulness:
I don't have to shout it from the roof-tops to feel validated.

No, you just patrol the section looking for threads to you can stealthily use to self-validate .

Mindfulness:
Divorce is ALWAYS costly. And even if it wasn't, the wronged party can make it so if it helps them to feel better.

The link says otherwise in financial terms, you claimed otherwise in emotional terms with your bogus "better divorced, than unhealthy environment" cliché.

Mindfulness:
You are free to ignore nauseating comments.
You seem to have masochistic tendencies.

One may need to be slightly masochistic (or to be pious sacrificial ) to remain committed for the long haul.

Mindfulness:
I didn't know I have that much power over you.

You don't - your winding mazy runs usually lack end product. But just to ensure that those lauding your silky skills do not remain blind to the fact


TV

Mindfulness:
Whatever you call it, it doesn't change the fact that you and many other people use marriage to gloss over their feelings of insecurity.

Please explain this - how do I use marriage to "gloss over my insecurity" ?

Mindfulness:
I don't need to understand marriage as some sort of bondage so that I feel secure. And I don't need to punish people to feel better.

How can choice and consensuality be deemed bondage?

Mindfulness:
Fault divorce makes divorce messier than it needs to be and greatly diminishes chances for parents to maintain a friendly parental relationship for the sake of their kids.

In what way does "fault" divorce make separation messier? And how does it make parents less friendly?

Mindfulness:
When there was fault divorcing, people used to stay together by force maintaining an unhealthy environment for everyone involved.

Firstly, separated parents is always unhealthy for kids. Secondly, fault divorce means that marriage is less likely to be treated as a disposable relationship that can be canned on a whim. And thirdly it meant that there was some sort of recompense for the wronged party.

Mindfulness:
And one of the benefits is to make another person stay with you by force?

Utterly bogus. No one gets married by force.

Mindfulness:
I don't need to champion anything. I live my life and marriage as it suits me, whether you like it or not.

Don't be touchy. Be proud. Truth has no problem being shouted from the roof-tops

Mindfulness:
No! Divorce is costly in many countries whether the couples want it or not.

Divorce is not costly. Individuals make it costly - https://www.gov.uk/divorce/overview

Mindfulness:
It definitely is a catalyst to my happiness.
Happiness is the purpose of my life by CHOICE.

That too.

I have not said that I am ONLY responsible for my happiness, I have said that I am PRIMARILY and EXCLUSIVELY responsible for my happiness.

Repeated - and varied to suit - ad nauseum

Mindfulness:
You are too sensitive now.

Only to your finely honed dribbling skills. !


TV

Mindfulness:
I have already explained it. There are some legal benefits that result from this contract.

Legal benefits granted by the state - if said benefits were not already inherent in marriage - are not the reason for marriage. You get the state benefits because you are married, marriage is not so that you can garner state benefits.

Mindfulness:
I think it is sick to marry for the reason that it gives you control over your spouse.

Again, a diminished understanding of marriage and it's commitment.

Mindfulness:
I expect my spouse to be loyal and respectful because he wants to and not because he has to. If he doesn't want to respect our relationship, then good riddance to ...

It's "good riddance" now is it ? Not, "whatever makes one happy"

Mindfulness:
Yes and I am sure you know it.
I would much rather try to maintain a friendly relationship with the father of my kids if he decided to behave in
a way that is not pleasing to me then have him punished. It wouldn't help me at all.

No fault divorce has nothing to do with kids, or actually does anything to maintain friendly relationships.

Indeed, when there was "fault", divorcing couples use dot focus their energy on the fault. Now their is "no-fault", they typically focus on the terms of the separation, often the kids.

Mindfulness:
Never has been and never will be.

Lots of relationship forms, but only 1 type of marriage as defined.

Mindfulness:
Which benefits? Do you really think that everyone wants the same benefits as you do? Certainly not.

The benefits are multi-level. Not just for the individuals, and not much to do with legally sanctioned goodies .

Mindfulness:
Certainly not your understanding of marriage but this should come as no surprise.

Championing marriage is primarily by living it, not commandeering it as it suits in order to validate ones choices.

Mindfulness:
Divorce is expensive. This in itself makes it harder for people to leave.

I'm no expert on divorce, but that would only be if the couple make it so.

Mindfulness:
No, I don't.
I am enjoying all the legal benefits that come with marriage without acting like it is some sort of bondage.
We entered the union voluntarily and we are free to exit it voluntarily.
I certainly won't force anyone to stay with me who doesn't want to.

It's not by force, or controlling. It's by choice and commitment. Like I said, a diminished grasp of the marriage institution. One that at best, only sees it as a vehicle for your happiness.

Mindfulness:
I have not said it was valid, I have simply presented a life experience where it has been helpful.

Either you are saying it is valid because it is helpful, or that doing something wrong is valid if it is helpful. Which just suggests you don't subscribe to moral absolutes, rather consider outcomes. Happiness again

Mindfulness:
I am sure most people try to resolve their conflicts before they think of separation.

Or cheating

Mindfulness:
I am very committed to myself and my happiness, which is not exclusive to being committed to other people in my life. How is it your problem?

Don't get into a funk - you have repeatedly stated that you are only responsible for your own happiness. And more tellingly, emphasised that you are not responsible for the unhappiness you leave in your wake whilst in search of your own happiness.

Mindfulness:
Well, I don't hate you or your views. I ignore them most of the time. It wasn't me who quoted you on this thread. Maybe you were too slow to notice that I choose to quote you when I like your comment instead feeling bitter about comments that go against my beliefs. I love the freedom to choose what I like instead of focusing on the things I don't like.
It is your choice to contaminate your system with negative vibes of scorn.

Like coyly claiming to respect my opinions, then labelling them naïve and idealistic in the same breathe .


TV

crackhaus:
Marriage is already a contract by civil law, but it ain't the kind of contract that can attract the penalty of a fine/jail time should one or more of the parties involved be found wanting.

Then in what sense is it a contract?

crackhaus:
The reason for this is because, as much as it's a contract pledging commitment between two people, you really can't force anyone to remain committed to another person on an emotional and sexual level against his/her own freewill - that will be tantamount to abuse on one's civil liberties.

Firstly, no one is forced to "contractually pledge commitment", that is done on their own volition, and it is done consensually.

And secondly, if enforcing the commitment, or sanctioning the breaking of it, is an abuse of civil liberties, then entering into it in the first place is wrong. It perfectly aligns with "restraint of trade" law". You cannot "contract" something that is illegal.

crackhaus:
Which is why there is an option for divorce (terminating said contract) should one or both parties require an out.

Mindfulness noted the covenant form of marriage earlier. It would help if we consider a civil form as distinct. Noting that I don't consider it true marriage - and yes, I appreciate that many jurisdictions do.

Divorce is not part of the marriage contract, it's an entirely separate legal transaction, which only comes into play with premature dissolution. But then how does divorce on the basis of "one party wanting an out" in anyway enhance marriage?

Obviously vows may vary, but vows which do not pledge permanence, or include "an out", are not marriage vows. Whatever the label the contract is given. In pretty much the same way as the relationship of two same sex people can never be a marriage. I outlined the particulars in my response to Stilly above.

crackhaus:
Another thing to note is that most contracts are not given lifetime validity, so are you then saying the marriage contract should hold on a minimum of 5years after which either party can choose to renew it for up to 10years or choose to end it?

Most contracts may not be lifetime, but some are, and marriage is one such. It's true nature demands it. A "rolling arrangement" would create more problems. Besides, this is a mute point , if as you've noted, the contract is unenforceable.

crackhaus:
If this is the case, them your idealism might begin to make more sense...but on the account that you want to keep people in a lifetime union by imposing jail time or fines, then that's just not gonna cut it.

Sanctions are not the preferred way, honouring the commitment (contract) is, or alternatively avoiding it, and adopting some other arrangement.


TV