₦airaland Forum

Stillfire:
Lol, I agree that the idea of an open marriage is an oxymoron. I just threw that in there for the non- religious amongst us. Now for the religious ones, and since Nigeria boasts to be a religious country, I really don't see how sanctions and penalties for adultery should be a problem, lol.

You know Stilly, the more I study and examine marriage, the more I see in it a unique simplicity, that behoves what I consider to be divine by design. Did I just say that

The basic criteria of male & female, lifelong, monogamous, consensual, majority age and consanguineous restrictions, beautifully encapsulates what it is. Varying this in any way is to re-define it and perhaps more importantly, means it deliver less benefits.

A so called "open-marriage", would raise all sorts of questions around, inter-alia, paternity, stability, trust etc. That kind of agreement is better suited to a co-habbing , or some other lesser arrangement.

I never get why people want marriage without the particulars. Especially in this day and age where domestic arrangements can be pretty much as one wants without stigma.

It can only surmise that it's because they yearn for the validation and honour that accords with it, but don't have the wherewithal to commit to it?


TV

Mindfulness:
I respect your beliefs - at least as much as I can - but I don't share them.

You neither respect, nor share my beliefs. And that is neither here nor there, as the feeling is mutual .

Mindfulness:
Is the contract signed under the provision that cheating must be punished?

If reneging on a contract goes without sanction, what is the point of the contract?

Mindfulness:
The fact that it was previously so doesn't mean that it must be so now. There are good reasons why no fault divorced has been introduced.

There are? Pray tell, what might they be?

Mindfulness:
In the USA couples can decide to enter a distinct form of marriage, which is called covenant marriage (I don't know about other countries), in which the marrying spouses agree to accept more limited grounds for divorce.

When you understand the reasons for, purpose of, and benefits from marriage, you'll realise that there is in truth only one form of marriage.

However I fully understand that men are able to make variations on true marriage, yet still retain the label. The question is, does doing so deliver the same benefits?

Mindfulness:
This is NOT true.

A marriage is a legally recognized relationship.
If the marriage breaks down, custody and alimony laws apply, which regulate the separation.
In many countries, both parents are granted shared custody if a child is born.
The child has the father's name in majority of the cases, provided the parents are married.
It is not as easy to leave a marriage as it is other relationships.
Married people have certain rights if anything happens to their spouse.
And people who marry officially announce their intention to commit to their partner for the rest of their lives, which makes marriages more stable than other relationships.

Are you now championing marriage ?

But how, if cheating should be allowed and non-punishable, or partners allowed to depart whenever they choose, make it more stable or harder to leave

Here you make a somewhat classic case for marriage, whilst at the same time refusing to live by it's dictates in your own marriage?. I come to realise that most people don't argue from principle, just from a desire to justify what they practice.

Mindfulness:
I have never said that the only way to resolve the issue is to cheat. In fact, I think, that it backfires more often than not but I also think that your position that every problems in marriage can be solved is quite idealistic or even naive. I do not mean to be disrespectful.

And nobody - at least I didn't - claim that you said "the only way" to resolve the issue is to cheat. What you have clearly implied, is that "cheating is a valid way".

Like I said, you neither share not respect my beliefs . But to be sure, every problem in marriage can at the very least be attempted to be resolved, and often workable compromises can be reached. That does not mean that every issue will be resolved to the satisfaction of both, or even one of the parties. It just demonstrates that the commitment to the union is present.

Indeed, the more you write, the more you demonstrate that your commitment is only ever to yourself (your own happiness. It's weird as well that on one hand, you emphasise that you are not bound by societal norms or conventions, yet you insist on dressing your choices in the garb of normalcy? Insisting they are as right, even spiritual

I actually think I despise yours more than you hate mine. And you only hate mine because they don't validate yours. .


TV

Stillfire:
Now, my moralistic opinion is that cheaters in marriage should be fined and policed by the government and a considerable amount given to the partner that was cheated on.

Exactly - "fault divorce". Indeed, "no-fault" divorce is an oxymoron. Although forgiveness and restoration should be sought first, and at least be an option.

Stillfire:
In the advent of lack of income to pay the government, the cheater goes to jail for a month or 2 or 3.

Yes, sanctions up to and including imprisonment are not unreasonable.

Stillfire:
It will not solve the cheating problem, but it would regulate it and help bring some sanity into the institution.

Exactimundo - the institution will be entered to more soberly - as it was, and should be done.

Stillfire:
The law is too focused on 'divorce'. Laws need to be introduced to protect and preserve the marriage institution and the partners involved in the institution.

A1* . Given the purpose and benefits of marriage, it should be shored up all round and supported by force of law. Divorce is actually the anti-thesis of marriage, so shoring up divorce can only serve to weaken marriage.

Stillfire:
You will still have the right to leave the institution, but you will be fined for it. In Nigeria, where conclusions are analyzed and arrived at through religion, I don't see how most people would have a problem with this.

In faith terms I disagree with a "right to leave". You had a right to "not enter in the first place". But this is much better than what we have - and in fact, was what we used to have.

Stillfire:
This will enable only sincere people to get into that institution. The only exception would be if both parties prior to the marriage agree to have an open marriage. Also there will be the freedom of not getting married at all.

Again, I disagree with the former, but agree with the latter. An "open marriage" is not a marriage. Another oxy-slowpoke. Marriage is by definition about life-long fidelity. Simply refrain from marriage as stated - people are free to order their domestic arrangements as they see fit. If they are eligible for, and choose marriage, they abide by it's strictures.


TV

Mindfulness:
Where did you outline what should happen? I cannot see it.
Forgiveness or separation.

Yes, it is but I would like to know what kind of redress specifically.

Ok. And I guess you would like to blame and punish? In what way specifically?

I have outlined my position from a faith position here; https://www.nairaland.com/2347293/possibility-divorce-according-bible/1#45577314

Even if one does not subscribe to the Biblical position, marriage - even civil - is a freely entered into contract. You don't simply renege on a contract without consequence, otherwise, the contract was of no import in the first instance.

By law, the only reasons for divorce where the 3 A's - adultery, abandonment and abuse. So redress. As stated divorce was previously a "fault" issue, so the party looking to leave, or responsible for the split would render forfeits, be it the house, p/alimony, custody etc. And as we saw in that earlier thread, even the 3rd party in an adulterous situation should be penalised. "

No-fault" divorce essentially makes a marriage contract meaningless. Not that I see it as a contract, but over and above that, a covenant. And of course forgiveness is an option for the wronged party

Mindfulness:
I never said you were condoning it.

I've made that clear, but your arguments suggests that people are either condoning it, or seeing it as the logical consequence of cheating.

Mindfulness:
Well, in theory maybe. Not in reality, though.

So denial - or reticence, or imbalance, or abeyance - of sex can never be overcome? And the only way to resolve the issue is to cheat


TV

Theophinio:
This is it
AWESOME
MORE GRACE UPON YOU SIR

Gracias- much appreciated. I'd been meaning to say more on this issue, so instead of opening a thread - lazy me - I'll just post it here...let me know your thoughts.

[size=14pt]…it is better not to marry[/size]

Matthew 19:10 (NKJV)
10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry

I believe the bible, and I also believe the bible makes it clear that God instituted marriage for the flourishing and well-being of mankind.

From a purely Christian perspective, marriage has a number of imperatives and serves a number of purposes. I do however believe that God recognises all formally enacted marriages.

The bible makes the law of marriage very clear – it’s until death do part. One may well separate from, or “divorce” their spouse, but re-marriage, whilst ones original spouse is still alive, is adultery. And how will one not consider remarriage- whilst the former spouse is alive - a state, as opposed to an act of sin/adultery?

God hates divorce. Who has the nerve to freely counsel what God hates - divorce - and more specifically, what marriage law forbids – remarriage whilst the original spouse is still alive?

So even if you can conjure up reasons for divorce – and to be clear, I don’t believe the bible really states any for a consummated marriage – remarriage remains out of the question whilst the former spouse is still alive.

Hence, I am always happy to advise people not to marry, or counsel on enhancing their unions, but I will never advise divorce. That is not within anyone’s remit – “What God has joined together...”.

Hence the best remedy for dysfunctional unions, is not to campaign for divorce – it’s at root - to ensure that marriage is properly understood, embraced and committed to in the first instance.

By campaigning for divorce as a remedy, marriage as a whole is weakened and not held in the right reverence, entered into incorrectly, and divorce multiplies the more.

Conjuring up nebulous or woolly reasons for divorce, or not first counselling serious and consistent efforts at healing and restoration, are unbiblical and wrong whatever you believe. Talk of “moving on”, especially where it implies remarriage, is sin, if your spouse is still alive.

Marriage is an archetype of Gods relationship with Israel, of Christ’ love for His church. You cannot leave or forsake your spouse. If you genuinely believe you are in danger, remove yourself from the situation, but you cannot dissolve the union.

If your spouse is genuinely repentant, you are to forgive, and keep on giving them opportunity to repent. If they are not, or you cannot, even if you separate, you cannot divorce, and you cannot re-marry while they are still alive.

Advocates, campaigners and mongers for divorce will answer, as will those who commit the offence. If you did it ignorantly, then repentance is available. But if you refuse to accept it as sin, then your sin remains – and you are clearly saying divorce can happen repeatedly.


TV

lezz:
Quite correct, that's why I wouldn't answer bukatyne's trap of having me define "love" .

Can you imagine?


TV

Mindfulness:
By you?

Yes . So what do you think should happen?

Mindfulness:
Redress? How can the 'wronged' party be redressed?

The wrong party seeks/is given redress. That's the correct legal wording - I stand to be corrected

Mindfulness:
What courts are we talking about? Nigerian?

Divorce always had a cause,. There was a Plaintiff and a defendant. May jurisdictions are changing to no-fault, hence there are simply a petitioner and a respondent. Not sure Nigeria has/will?

Mindfulness:
Now you are contradicting yourself. Just a few posts ago you said that cheating can be the cause of violence. Which one is it now?

Cheating can be "the cause" of violence, cheating is not "cause" for violence. That is, I know it can trigger it, but, I'm not condoning it - no,no, don't mention it, it's your grasp of English, not mine .

Mindfulness:
And if one of the spouses denies the other the pleasure of se.xual intercourse, what do you suggest?

They work it out. Why should there be a denial? Marriage is at it's heart a conjugal relationship. Without sex it's barely a marriage, and without consummation, it can be annulled. They work it out. Nothing that can't be fixed if the will is there.


TV

lezz:
My postulation has been simple. When men cheat, they often do so for fun or just because they can or for ego.

They still love and keep their union even though they can easily divorce and remarry.( the majority of cheating men that is)

I actually agree with your premise on the whole. The only thing I would question is using the very arbitrary term "love". Outside of religion - Christianity - for me, it is simply impossible to pin down. It can mean so many things, an ddoes not necessarily precipitate or underpin marriage.

TV

Mindfulness:
What should happen to people who cheat - men and women? Let me hear.

You go hear am - having said that,this question has already been asked on this thread .

My take is that it first and foremost depends on the definition of a relationship. By definition if the relationship is not formalised or agreed - implicitly or explicitly - by the couple,then cheating cannot take place.

So for example, boyfriend/girlfriendage, I do not consider this formal, moreso where the couple do not clearly outline and agree their expectations.

For a formal marriage, fidelity is implicit, therefore cheating is a transgression. The wronged party has the right to forgive, redress or both. hence my delight and position when we discussed a while back and it transpired that a woman, was fined for committing adultery with a married man.

Prior to no-fault divorce, their had to be cause, and adultery was just cause. And that would determine how the judge ruled. Some jurisdictions choose to codify harsher punishments for adultery. I may not agree with the degree of harshness in some cases, but have no problem with it in principle.

Indeed, no fault divorce means in some ways means cheating has no real consequence for the cheat. Which means a number of things;
1. Cheating while not a right, is not effectively sanctioned. Vows are legally meaningless.
2. Violence may occur more frequently, especially knowing that there is no legal redress, and the laws mean they actually suffer more from the divorce than the cheat.

I don't think there is cause for violence, but neither do I believe there is cause for cheating.


TV

Mindfulness:
If a spouse breaks the marriage vows, you are free to go. I don't see how violence will fix any problems but I can see how it will create more problems. I think it would go a long way if we offered constructive solutions instead of offering understanding for destructive behavior. My two cents.

You are conflating and confusing;

1. If one is "free to go" when a spouse cheats, how does that in and of itself right the wrong of cheating? Or are you claiming no wrong has been done? Or perhaps you subscribe to cheating as a right, as we have learnt today

2. Nobody has said violence will fix anything, or indeed that it is in anyway a good thing. The only thing that has been stated, is that as "cheating" is an outworking of human nature, so is "violence". And cheating may precipitate violence.

3. The constructive solution was preach against cheating, or do not take vows or make commitments that make you a cheat if you break or renege on them. Understanding causes of "destructive behaviour", is not to make excuses for it, rather, it's to help prevent situations that trigger it

The convoluted efforts to vilify a bad outcome and leave unattended a bad action is misguided. As is the underlying effort to absolve women of responsibility for their actions. And yes anyone who commits violence should also face the consequences

QED...and I fed, bathed and put both the kids to bed...I'm good .


TV

^{...shaybebaby...go and read your book}

Mindfulness:
It CAN be dangerous.

Jungle justice is more dangerous because it can also harm people who are PERFECTLY innocent and I wouldn't want to be part of such a society.

Cheating is always dangerous - the outcomes may vary. Nobody is sanctioning jungle justice, we are merely saying violence, is one possible outcome of cheating - cause & effect!

So rather than assert that a woman has a right to cheat and the man should never seek recourse in violence, condemn the cheating, which is wrong and the cause, as well as the violence, which is also wrong, but a consequence.

Even the law recognises this via "crimes of passion".

Mindfulness:
Whether she actually cheats or not, it is wrong to take her life for the reasons I have already outlined.

No one has claimed it is right, good, fitting, proper or appropriate, merely a possible consequence of her original wrong (cheating) - which we have now learnt is a right

Mindfulness:
TV, the reality is that people take these vows and break them all the time. Maybe we should re-consider the vows. I know you don't like it but to me these vows are so naive.

So to make a case against violence, you would condone cheating and covenant breaking - can't you see why you are on to a loser here?
Nobody is forced into marriage, or to take vows, people can arrang etheir domestic affairs as they see fit. If they see fit to marry, let them honour marriage and abide by it's rules.

Mindfulness:
True but people enter marriage with best intentions and then life happens!

"Life" may affect ones situation, it shouldn't change ones character

Mindfulness:
Murder has not solved anything but cheating has.
I know of a man who cheated on his wife who didn't fulfill her 'marital duties' for one reason or another and let herself go after marriage. She became unattractive, unavailable and even aggressive. The man tried to fix it but to no avail. Frustrated as he was, he started cheating on her. It was a great relief for him. He decided not leave his wife because of his children. When the wife found out that he was cheating, she made a transformation.

Competition - the say - stimulates business.

You have no way of knowing what other pathologies his cheating triggered, or other possible outcomes. His cheating could have triggered a violent response. And way to prescribe evil as a a way to achieve good .


TV

sweetcocoa:
I know what you are doing, just continue you hear. Agadi na gwo ofe.

We all know that attention is your lifeblood - thank me for contributing to your well-being

No excuses 0! We expect good results given the effort put into schooling you up in here.


TV

^{...shaybebaby, did you pass? No more posting until you do}

Mindfulness:
Jungle justice is much more dangerous than cheating. In a society where jungle justice is the order of the day, innocent people can be killed without a fair trial. I can shout "thief" and a mob will come after you. A man can claim that his wife was cheating and get scot-free even though in fact he just wanted to get rid of her. People can be killed without proper evidence. It is a scary place to be.

1. So,you accept that cheating is dangerous? Therefore, the relative degree of danger is subjective

2. Nobody is arguing for jungle justice. And the premise was not in response to allegations of cheating, but a womans "right to cheat" and not be subject to violence, or expect it as a possible consequence - given human nature - as we both agree - it's always a possibility, even if not a good or rightful outcome. Please do not blur the boundaries

Mindfulness:
Moreover, and I know we won't agree here, even if you are married to someone, the person can decide to do with their body whatever they choose to. A marriage is not slavery. And if the person chooses to break the marriage vows, you are free to leave them. Killing this person is not a solution.

1. Not if one has already vowed marital fidelity. Again, a faulty notion of "rights" pervades the thinking here.

2. One is free not to enter marriage, and as much as I don't subscribe to divorce for pretty much any reason, one could also leave the marriage.

Killing is certainly not a solution. What is cheating a solution too? And it is not a right if you take marriage vows!

Mindfulness:
It is an opinion, indeed. However, it is also a subjective opinion that cheating is such a big deal.

But it's not a subjective opinion that killing is a big deal

sweetcocoa:
You don't know anything, biko leave me alone and quote people who'd like you to, I don't, na by force? Nama.

Did you nail the exam, or are you actually here when you ought to be studying?


TV

Mindfulness:
First of all, I am not here to eliminate any problems. I am just speaking my mind and sharing my thoughts for the fun of it.

Don't be pious, we are all sharing thoughts - whatever our perspectives or approaches.

Mindfulness:
Secondly, cheating is a personal issue. Jungle justice is a public issue.

Personal to whom? Is the fallout from cheating any less than that from a violent response? What is it that makes 1 personaland the other public?

Mindfulness:
I don't agree but let's agree to disagree.

Even if we disagree to agree kpa kpa

Mindfulness:
It's easy for you and it is easy for me but it OBVIOUSLY is not so easy for MANY people of this generation, previous generations and future generations.

Who told you it's easy (or necessarily hard) for anyone? This is your subjective opinion. The impropriety of the offence is not dependant on the ability, or the willingness to refrain from committing it.

Mindfulness:
Your calling.

And yours is

sweetcocoa:
Agbaya, face your front.

...did you ace it? Or did you present your usual watery submissions.

Olodo

TV

Mindfulness:
Very good point. In fact, the urge to take revenge and do 'justice' is very human in my opinion.

So, cheating - according to you - is human, as is violence. Why focus on eliminating one, when they are both destructive aspects of human nature. And more so in this instance, focus on eliminating the consequence, and not the cause?

Mindfulness:
I am not saying that cheating is right BUT I think that jungle justice is even more dangerous.

Even if I agree with this, it remains an opinion shared, no more

Mindfulness:
What is the solution to cheating?

Not to cheat. Easy peasy

Mindfulness:
TV, you are addressing the wrong person. Have I ever said anything like this?

I'm not necessarily placing this at your feet, but it's writ large in this thread - even in the premise. And elsewhere in our on-going discussion on the Family board.

Mindfulness:
ALL IS WELL.

Make I regulate finish first

sweetcocoa:
What is even being argued here, that a woman who cheats should expect to be killed or what?

Who let you out? Don't you have exams? Please tell us, what should a woman who cheats expect?


TV

Mindfulness:
Regardless of how we preach that cheating is wrong, it will always be part of human nature to desire more than one partner and give in to this temptation.

What on earth is being argued here?

That the temptation to cheat and giving in to that temptation is part of human nature, but violence and the instinctual response to acts of threat, fraud, or deceit with violence is not?

The whole premise of this thread is flawed and in no way solves the problems of cheating, violence or divorce. Indeed, it states cheating by wives as a right (when it's patently wrong), and divorce (another wrong) as a solution? Wetin una chop

I give no truck to violence, but I do not consider cheating as a lesser sin. In fact, the bible talks of divorce as an act of violence. Why does it appear that most women are incapable of arguing for anything other than their own happiness (and based on wilful or even destructive desires)?

When a man hits a woman it's violence/abuse, but when a man hits a woman who hit him first, it's "two fighting". Men must never react violently to cheating (or anything else), but women have a right to cheat?

Tragic.


TV

bukatyne:
A wife has the right to cheat; the husband has the right to divorce her.

Really? "A wife has the right to cheat"? A wife who takes vows of lifelong marital fidelity, or some other type of wife? And from whence does this right cometh?

Do you actually know what constitutes a right? And are rights simply accessed as one desires?

Oh, wait, it's bukatyne, my bad...


TV

edwife:
God first yes but it's like most of you christians don't even know the God you serve.

Why do we pay tithes? Where do the tithes
to? How many of you have seen God himself using the tithes? Paying the tithes won't guaranty that it will go for the work of God,most of the tithes are used to care for these men of God,their feeding,kids education,family trips and luxuries so I will let my brother roast at home just because I have to please my pastor? If it's God you want to please,you will pay for your brother school fees first because charity begins at home.

If you don't know, this is not a burning offering,these tithes are meant to help with the work of God such as helping the poor,building churches and so on.

Now how many of your so cold pastors use those tithes for what they are meant for? Isn't it your brother part of the people in need that suppose to benefit from it?

The God I serve is a merciful understanding and generous God.I am not using it to club or buy alcohol but save the future of one of his kids.

Jeez I can't believe how gullible christians are

Blue, how far? The whole thing just saddens me. You know, this tithing issue is what brought me to NL over 10 long years ago. Doctrinally the case was clear - no mandatory tithe for Christians.

In Christ Jesus, God blesses you anyway, and will reward you for your good deeds. There is no categorisation of giving, or an attendant "tariff" garnering heavenly blessings. Christian giving is so beautifully simple - Matthew 25 v35 - end, 2 Corinthians 8.

Why rebuild those things Christ died to destroy, why spurn grace for the law, the law you cannot possibly keep, why become slaves of men when Christ has set you free?

I always tried to move the discussion from theology to the practical outworking. All good doctrine will accord with truth, and a clearly understood practical outworking - dem no gree. Round and round we went.

The resistance was so ferocious, it appeared spiritual. Some posters were so prolific, I was sure it was a co-operative using the one moniker? In the end I migrated to the family section - only to find a different set of demons there

Stillfire:
Didn't know you were already on this thread!

single-tasking lends itself to focus, expertise and speed


TV

Stillfire:
Please pay your brother's school fees. The kingdom of God is not built on your tithes and offerings. Tithes was established in the old testament so that the Levites who do not work and do not have an inheritance would be taken care of. It was also to be given to the poor and widows at certain times and there were also certain times the tither uses the tithe on himself. Your brother needs help, help him. Don't let illiterate Nigerian pastors scare you silly. Nigerian pastors are not descendants of the Levitical priesthood. They have inheritance. Paul explains that the only priest we look up to is Jesus Christ. If you want to give to Jesus, give to those in need, for He said I came to you when I was poor and you didn't give to me. Nigerian pastors have adopted all the money parts of the law, forgetting that whoever wants to be judged by the law, has to keep everything in the law.
If you want to give 10% to the church, do it by your own freewill because the church will pay bills, simple. Don't let them use Malachi 3 to scare you. God understands your predicament.

TV01 what do you think?

Think? Think?? I'm too busy applauding to think...I'm a bro'dude na...nothing like multi-tasking

God bless you real good Stilly.



TV

Otth:
Okay, this is a challenge I need a solution to. My parents are saying no money no money when it is obvious that they have. My little brother is home because he has outstanding fees so I was wondering if I should give him my tithe to pay part while I pay the tithe next month when I get my next salary, I don't know what to do.

Mods please move it to fp, I need urgent solution to this.

Tithing is not mandatory for Christians. You are free to pay a tithe as mandated by your religious institution, but be clear; a tithe is not demanded by God.

What is demanded however, is that your parents take proper care of their children and lay good grounds for their futures. If your parents won't listen to you, please involve someone respected they will listen too.

Don't set a precedent of spending your money when they should be spending theirs, unless they genuinely don't have.

Appreciate your desire to please God, and your care and concern for your sibling.


TV

francis18:
BUT NOT LONG AGO ABOUT 6 MONTHS AGO THIS USED TO BE YOUR MODUS OPERANDI,YOU USED TO SLEEP ON THREADS FOR DAYS TO ARGUE AND FIGHT.JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAPPEARED FOR 6 MONTHS AND CAMEBACK ALL OF A SUDDEN AS MINDFULLNESS,MATURE GROWN UP WOMAN, WITH A HUSBAND AND KID WHO IS SPEAKING IN LESS THAN A YEAR BY THE WAY.AND BY THE WAY NO MATTER HOW YOU CLAIM TO HAVE CHANGED,YOU ARE STILL CAREFREEWANNABE. I SAW YOU YESTERDAY LIKING ALL YOUR FRIEND POSTS SO YOU SEE YOU ARE NOT BETTER THAN ANYONE HERE IF NOT JUST CALCULATIVE.

Prophets just full ground for here 0! More than happy to take a back seat as the wind blows .

@bold, good thing I'm not the only one that noticed. We know she purloined anothers husband, but there was some uncertainty about the child/ren. Was she previously a single mother, or did she "TOGOF" - teef one, get one free . Maybe more than one sef, as I'm sure she has mentioned "children". Abi na blend or pre-teef tings

Funny how she came late to this one acting all pious - was it the touchy sub-topics, that made her hold her peace until it calmed down . She normally does a full-blown knight in shining armour act - which looks good - but always fails.

Her whole purpose here is to justify and spread as normal her wicked actions. I must say though, it's possibly more fun watching her and her cohort get taken down as actually doing it myself. Me sef, should try this "holding peace" thing

postmann:
And here you are, entombed in the same fallacy that has burried many. Since when did advancement in science and technology become proportionate to morality?

Danke! Exposing one of her favourite diversionary tactics. "They are more technologically advanced, ergo, anything they do is alright" - sometimes transalted as "since thay are more technologically advanced, they cannot be morally judged by the less technologically advanced". The mind boggles. Thanks again.

TeeVee ^{Marriage Advocate, Femnivore, GDT Swatter and all round peaceful somborry}

postmann:
Observing your love for vulgarism and lasviciousness, I can't help wonder if your muff has been icecold and abandoned or the winter-struck, flaccid dick that services you need the African weather to do his job.

Ye 0! My head. Please sah, haff mercy

https://www.nairaland.com/2346403/sexless-relationship-due-man

Are you amongst the prophets?

TV

shaybebaby:
Reading your fairy tales has equipped you..with skills to make up fantasies in your head. , who needs reality eh? All you have to do is believe innit?
Firstly, the assumption that my son will cry for his daddy implies that he doesn't see his father. Judging by your own standards and what you are/would be like as a father? Tut!Tut!!! Revealing yourself now, shame.
2) you live in a cramped flat ( for you to be unable to picture anything else, your frame of reference is your reality)
3) you have no faith in your wife as a person because you imagine that is what she would do if she left your lame ass, parade a variety of men in front of your kids.( not that I would blame her, she would probably need the extra traffic to remove the horror of having had to fvck you from her mind).
4) Your child would have to compete with the new person bexcuse they are insecure as a consequence of your ability to reassure them and make them feel secure in your love.

You really are repugnant as a person. If you want to know how it works with me out of genuine curiosity, I may oblige you but this reverse psychology of trying to do amebo stylishly ain't going to work.

Why on earth would I be interested in the travails of a pathetic single mum. And your son seeing his dad for a few hours every couple of weeks is not optimal.

All of a sudden I actually feel cut for the boy, and would hate to even imagine having that kind of relationship with my son. Not being with him night and day. Being there when he wakes up troubled at night, comforting him through childhood illnesses, and grudgingly letting him into our bed in the mornings

You can't ever replicate the kind of comfort and security he would have from an intact home with both his biological parents.

For his sake I sheath my sword, I pray he has really positive outcomes despite it all.


TV

shaybebaby:
Childrens Act 1989, amended 2004 vs your fairy tale book. I repeat, I dare you.
THICKO.

When your son is crying because he misses his daddy, or openly hostile at the alien men parading through your cramped council flat, do you hand him the "Childrens Act 1989" and say "here, son, read this, and please stop cramping my style, I'm in hot pursuit of happiness".

...you...dare me...


TV

shaybebaby:
Call social services nah, . You and I are not in Nigeria where there isn't suitable child protection laws. Whilst we are it, we can examine you too Mr two-parent-household. We will see if this is a prerequisite for raising well adjusted children.
Again, you are being challenged..I dare you.(weak ass pvssy)

...you...examine me

So a two-parent household is not a pre-requisite, but a divorce situation is?

...you...challenge me


TV

crackhaus:
Nothing wrong in two men raising a kid and certainly nothing wrong in two women raising a kid. There's nothing special about having a male dad or a female mother as nature designed.
All we need is love and love conquers all.

Dunno Cracky? Is it me? Have I been remiss, could all the worlds problems be solved GDT reductionism? Maybe my "lived experience" is deceiving me ?

Raising a child is just breast-feeding and changing nappies? Why wasn't I told this. Why is my 4 year old, who is no longer does, nor needs either of those still under my roof? Raising a child is just a list of chores. Feed them, dress them, pay their nursery fees.

There is nothing on the developmental side that the uniqueness of the sexes helps to formulate and develop along the correct pathways? After all, boys lacking affirmation by their fathers, hasn't been implicated in some instances of SSA by men.

The different ways that mothers and fathers engage - even when it on the exact same thing - the children, and each other doesn't help form a balanced understanding and correct psychological/psychosexual development in the children.

Or perhaps the studies showing that young women are less likely to engage in early sexual conduct or be promiscuous if there is a father present through her pubescent years are all wrong.

When it's been shown that even babies can identify the differences between the sexes as early as 8 weeks old? How ironic is it that some reach the age of majority and more and still can't see it .

Either I have missed it somewhat, or this is exactly the kind of cretinous over-simplification one would expect from a GDT' who can't hold a marriage together over 2 semesters, and will joyfully subject her offspring to abuse in pursuit of happiness.



TV

So here we have it;

1. Two adult and consenting men professing love for each other, must be allowed to formalise their union as a marriage - if they so desire. Why 3 adult, consenting men in love, wanting to formalise their relationship does not qualify is not explained

2. Those 2 men have a right to start a family and procure children using any means available. It’s their right, and being humane (and non-discriminatory) demands it. The attendant rights of the vulnerable “non-consenting” children to be raised by their biological parents is a mute point and humanness does not extend to them .

3. “Relatedness” in the form of family bonds (immediate & generational), extended kinship ties and bloodlines are not important – and certainly not in regards to 1 & 2 above – and their wilful truncation has no immediate or lasting impact on the childs long-term well-being.

4. Females, indeed, neither sex, bring anything unique, or of distinct value to nurturing children, and genetic investment by a parent counts for little or nothing.

5. The only thing that counts is the "uniqueness of the individual". However, being male or female, which is fundamental to every person, doesn’t influence or factor into that persons unique individuality? It must really take a special degree of delusion to have come up with that.

So, to make the relationship of two same sex partners the same as an opposite sex couple, and qualify as a family, analogous to what the natural family of an opposite sex couple would be, all the particulars of actually being a family must be deemed as inconsequential. Indeed, apart from actual childbirth, all the particulars of being either male or female must be considered immaterial.

The child once treasured as the procreative outcome of the natural family, is now the realisation of a couples vanity. Instead of arriving by the generative coupling of committed parents, it is procured by a series of legal and technological interventions.

Una do well 0. I sense the doctrine of demons - strong delusion. And if the delusion is of God, who will deliver you? You shall surely eat the fruit of it. And those that applaud it will be judged as those that do it.


TV

shaybebaby:
I sight with my very eyes someone desperately seeking validation despite being told that no one gives a rats @rse.

Presumably you are seeking your local gaylord and his lover to hand your kid over too? After all, Free says you bring zilch to raising kids. Plus it would probably afford you more time to "pursue happiness"


TV

freecocoa:
You truly are delusional to think you can bully me, the difference between you and I is that I know when to let go, as only a f00l will keep speaking to a deaf person.

If I consider you all those and realise you are set in your ways, why in satan's name will I waste my time trying to change that? Be whatever you want and I be what I choose is the point here.

You are too interested in my matters, I don't want that, just mind your business is all.

...go on Free please, na beg I dey beg you, wan qweshun..."do women bring anything unique and of value to raising children"?


TV

freecocoa:
The beauty in all this is that I am able to decide whether to answer your questions or not and so far, I have chosen not to,

No Free, you have no answers. Nothing, nada. If you had, you'd waste no time in putting a bullying, holier-than-thou, judgemental, censorious, over-sabi, ignorant moraliser & Christian fanatic in his place . You couldn't even deny the relationship allegation

It's getting pointless now, as toying with the "lifeless body" of your emotional and misplaced humanity, without any meaningful response to consider is boring. But the point has been made - aptly .

Ask nicely and I may provide some steer on your wretched relationship choices .


TV

freecocoa:
I still maintain that you can't do anything about this situation so why do you want to burst an artery over it? I am totally useless yet you want to kill yourself on top my matter, you seem to waste so much time on this nuisance of a person,it's becoming suspicious especially since it doesn't make any sense that you keep quoting me and writing endless epistles, when it's already been established how much of a nuisance I am.

I am less concerned about you. After all, your pathetic existence is writ large on NL. Are you still trying to forcibly make a devout Christian marry you? GDT. I don't even give a toss about what you believe. But if you can come up onto the webz and campaign for something, be prepared to be challenged.

freecocoa:
You are not the one to decide what is right or wrong in the world(surely you must know this) , so Oga Mr TV tell us, what is really the issue here?

And you are? And if right or wrong are to be decided, by whom would that be .

freecocoa:
Your inability to understand simple things makes me question your cognitive abilities, how does saying that this girl girl can get to feel like people who have a mother, mean everyone who's never had nor lost their mum is grieving for nothing? Do you know you are incredibly stupid, it's almost shocking?

Be quiet, you haven't been able to answer one question without an appeal to emotion, and you are questioning my cognition?

freecocoa:
TV, honestly I never really paid attention to your posts till the day you quoted me and this is our second encounter, had I known you were this slow, I would never have replied you ever, you disappoint me.

Silence woman. You are a confirmed votary of mine, and I delight to disappoint the godless .

What would be materially different between 2 or 3 men being married and/or raising a little girl? Answer one question na. Please just one. At least 4 posters have asked a variety and all you have is "your humanity". GOOH.


TV

freecocoa:
IThe only notion I care to correct, is the one on implying that woman are worthless, I leave it to you to twist, twist and keep twisting till you can't, all to prove your stupid point.

You quite clearly argue that women are not required to raise well-balanced children. If not, what worth do they have, other than as breeders. And if they are not required for this biological function for which they are uniquely equipped, why are they needed for anything? What could be
more basal to being female?

freecocoa:
If what you understand from my saying a child raised by two men can be loved and turn out right like her counterparts with a mum/dad, is that women are worthless, then I don't even see any reason why we should be talking, it would also mean that men are worthless because I agree that two women can be able to raise a well adjusted child too, at least you have shown us how I think women are the worthless ones, you should be proud of yourself.

Yes, you dismiss the unique value each sex brings to child raising, simply to justify two men being analogous to a natural family. If neither is essential, and biological relatedness is irrelevant, why not raise children in homes. Or do you need to see the tragic outcomes of children raised that way?

freecocoa:
I don't even know why you keep bothering, homosexuality has been here since time immemorial and isn't going anywhere obviously,

You see your life? reasoning and aptitude of close to zero. Who is arguing about when or where "homosexuality" has been around, how prevalent it is, or how long it will persist?

freecocoa:
children will be orphaned, people will adopt them (gays included), some children will lose either parent, people will use the services of a surrogate or sperm donor, the world will keep moving on, so what exactly is your point? If you have any, cos it's not like this post of yours will change all that.

So because some children will tragically lose a parent/parents, we should make that happen by design And we should wilfully throw children into any kind of domestic arrangement, just so long as it satisfies adult desires?

freecocoa:
And as for abuse, it doesn't happen because one isn't a biological parent of a child, it happens because people choose to be abusive, there is no proof anywhere that there's a gene that pushes people to abuse folks they aren't related to, so instead of trying to rope homosexuality into leading to abuse, you can use the energy you put into this epistle to preach kindness,

I linked non-relatedness to abuse, not homosexuality. Are you so irredeemably dim? Abuse is on average x6 more likely where one parent is not biologically related. Shaybebaby, please bear that in mind as you seek your personal happiness . Are you insistent that a non-biological parent is likely to be as invested in a child as a biological one? Gene for abuse? Are you bonkers

freecocoa:
if we all had it in us, no one will abuse anyone, that is what humanity is all about but I don't expect someone like you who is happy about others burning in hell for simply disagreeing with your stance, to have any humanity in him, people should stay away from folks like you.

Where have I ever implied that people will burn in hell, or even stated that I believe in such a notion Your conscience dey pepper you abi

freecocoa:
My friend please leave me alone with my depravity, I am yet to understand how it affects you, na by force? This kind thing tire me o.

Stop preaching - and based on deceit - evil as good.


TV