₦airaland Forum

EagleEyez505:
Many thanks bro! That was really comprehensive and apt. I do some job to pay my bills. I am also looking to do multiple jobs if I decide to get married in the next one year or there about. She's from a wealthy family and has a good job here in Canada but I am the kind of person who don't count on others to support me. I rely on what I have. I have always considered having two kids.

I am considering all the variables carefully before drawing a "final" conclusion.

You are most welcome. Marriage is a great thing. And it blesses my heart to see young men taking it seriously. It really is a matter of choice, preferences and ones ability and determination to optimise it - always enhanced by understanding and insight.

I am very fit and health conscious. So I wanted someone of like mind I found trying to force it did not work - women were happy to lie, or make half-hearted efforts to please me. But I realised they wouldn't hold to it long-term.

So I found a woman who came with an exercise culture independent of my prompting. Years down the line and after two kids, is she the same? Absolutely not, but she's only slightly bigger, makes a real effort and I love her for so many other reasons and in so many other ways.

However, any 1 thing may not be that important to you, or you may be willing to live with it because of other qualities and/or how much she means to you. Achievements, background etc., are good, but above all it's about character traits.

Just be sure in your mind what is really important, that you are willing to commit, and endure the not so great times if they come. And her qualities will help and make it worthwhile if they do.

Once again, all the very best.


TV

EagleEyez505:
Hello wonderful NLander,

I have a friend who is my age mate. She's two weeks younger than me. We are in our early thirties and both of us are "single" at the moment. Recently, I have been contemplating whether or not to move to the next level or we just remain as friends. She has an MSc and is currently working. I am currently a PhD student.

Thank you all!

Firstly, well done for asking serious questions about marriage and what it entails. First understanding, and then duly considering, goes a long way to establishing solid unions.

Second, advise apart, you are a man, you take responsibility for whatever action you choose to take. Having said both of those things, here is my take.

Primarily, it's this; age should always be a consideration. Especially with the long-term demands and management of marriage and family.

Consider your situation; would she expect to have children straight away - she is after all early 30's - or be willing to wait a few more years until your studies are complete, you have started work and/or established a career?

Maybe it's not a big factor? Are either of you are from wealthy backgrounds, or have independent means? If you are not, or don't, how will you cope?

If she is willing to wait, how long? Fertility can be an issue when age starts to creep up - say ^35 - but there are other considerations such as family size etc.

If you do proceed - and it will take say a year to get down the altar - and you plan for 2 kids fairly quickly, you probably won't have a shedload of physical action in the first few years and have the stress of providing for a young family quite soon.

The fact is the effort, stress and time taken, means that in 5-6 years when you get to that point of marriage-kids-somewhat settled, she will have passed through and probably not be as physically attractive.

You will have worked hard, taken on a big burden, seen a total change in lifestyle, with potentially lots of sacrifice. Are you prepared for that? Or the various other scenarios that could unfold? It's more of a critical time for her than it is for you. In all;

1. Please consider your level of care and willingness to commit to this lady long-term, whatever the scenario
2. If you are unsure, free her to find her way. To take her time and then disappoint her is simply wrong.

Don't just see things as they are, but how they will likely turn out. Whomsoever you eventually marry, there will be challenges. Yours is to prepare yourself, think strategically, and for marriage, commit wholly. Be considered, be bold, be a man

All the very best
TV

To the point in question, it takes very little to spark a young mans imagination. And, at a time when hormones are flowing like champagne on a rappers night out, the mere presence of females – even teachers sef, even dressed in sacks – can be a distraction. Studies clearly show that boys do better in all male schools, mostly because this distraction is absent.

To pursue this based on the desires or feelings of an individual, without regard to the well-being of the whole is a nonsense. And she was not being body-shamed, she was being asked to dress appropriately for the situation.

Firstly, women are “sex objects”. Secondly, women would be distraught if they were not considered as sex objects. Thirdly, most go all out – although the degree varies – to present and to be considered as sex objects. Fourthly, women need in some sense, and to some degree, to be sex objects for the whole sexually dimorphous nature of human beings to make any practical sense.

That is not to say that 1, the reverse is not also true to a degree, that 2, SO is all that – or the main thing - women are, 3, that SOification of women is to be unfettered or not subject to societal norms and conventions, and 4, those societal norms and conventions do not sometimes demand different things from the sexes.

Men are biologically wired – whatever your theological or ideological position – to respond to visual stimuli when it comes to sexual attraction. Or to put it another way; men sexually respond to women’ visual appearance – yes, basally, men, are certified sexual objectifiers .

What we had were societal norms that restricted men from acting from an untoward manner, and also expected women to show some decorum in their dressing.

In this day and age – especially in the West – what passes for everyday apparel” may appear normal to us, but in other parts of the world, and until recent times even in the West, the form fitting, body-hugging, “sexual-feature” emphasising clothing we take for granted would have been scandalous.

So, whatever a woman’ intent, whatever the era, or societal context, if she dresses in a way to accent her physical features, sexual objectification is decidedly in view. You cannot educate that out of men, only demand that they do not act in an untoward manner as a result.


TV

fav444:
Someone even told me dt if God wants to punish a man he gives him a bad wife.

crackhaus:
The person that told you this is very wise.. I don't know if it's God's way of punishing men, but I'm certain that marrying a bad and troublesome woman can be the shortest route to an early grave.

It's not so much that God punishes bad men by giving them bad wives, it's more that He intervenes to save good men from taking bad wives. I stand to testify .

Ecclesiastes 7:26 - And I find more bitter than death The woman whose heart is snares and nets, Whose hands are fetters. He who pleases God shall escape from her, But the sinner shall be trapped by her.

Be righteouss to avoid a wife-induced early grave


TV

Ewuro4:
TV01... 'Orange looking thing' It's amazing they're always orange or pink. Your last paragraph is powerful. Glad to see I'm not the only parent with that thought. How you dey?

Holá Jide, we are fine thanks...I trust likewise. How was your hiatus? Back sharper than ever I see . Who would swap their babies - of whatever sex?


TV

Knightngale:
this was interesting to read

Cheers. Life is in the experience and the memories. We thank God.

troy20:
just when i was about to pretend not give to a fvck whatever sex comes out eventually, i saw your fourth line.that's so unfair....been having those fantasies of me and me little boy going for such moments really... and am yet to even get married. there are still very much alot of people who wish more that that birth is male child.this is more so for the many more different reasons male children have been preferred.

People can pretend away ...who doesn't have a vision for their marriage, or dreams of, and for their family?

Men and women have hopes and desires around this- even if different, and even if for different reasons. If a woman desires a daughter, is it wrong for her husband to desire a son or vice-versa, or positions reversed??

I wanted sons and as many children as possible. My wife wanted no more than 2 children, and gave little thought to whether they were male/female or a mix. I would have been more upset with 2 daughters than she would have been with 2 sons. But with 2 sons, I would never have known the delight of having a daughter.

She may well be more satisfied, we are both overjoyed, and perhaps equally content. In all, we love what we have, with all we have. Funny isn't it, there was a time I thought marriage and kids may not happen.

We are human and we are in some ways insatiable. Always desirous of more, or of what others have, or thinking we have more than others - very evident in marriage and family life .


TV

joseph1832:
LOL. Remember all work and noo play make Lezz a doll boy. I still believe in couples being silent as regard throwing enormous marriage ceremonies, but then again, its left for the couples to decide.

My point being, it's not the fanfare, or lack of it that make it a marriage. Those are the secondary things left to the couple to decide. Marriage is indifferent to that.

joseph1832:
You think? If those regulations/oversight involve allowing and applauding situations where the husbands cheats, and the wife is expected to keep mute, I'll say such beauty is a sham waiting to blow up.

Don't conflate what individuals do "within marriage", with "what marriage is". The people, with the institution. What you have described here is clearly a breach of what marriage is supposed to be.

joseph1832:
Society can prove to be a class act deviant most times, this we've seen over and over again, as regard what society hold normal, in term of marriage.

As above

joseph1832:
I believe me you by 'you' you mean the man, cos as far as I know in today's Nigeria, society has made it its business to police the woman.

Lets' not talk at cross purposes. I refer to the institution, not what anyone decides to do once in it.

joseph1832:
Well I believe this applies to you and you alone. Because I believe my marriage should be a personal thing, many couples enter marriage looking for different things, for me, when I walk that path, happiness is my forte, and I'll damn well make sure its devoid of any nonsensical societal belief, norm or value system.

It's personal in how you live it out and your dynamic with your spouse. But in terms of our being married, we are fungible in the eyes of society.

A married couple is a married couple - distinct from a non-marital relationship. How we live it may differ. If every marriage is defined by those involved alone, the term becomes meaningless.

I get it about personalised individual marriage relationships, but not about marriage per se.


TV

joseph1832:
No doubt. But we all know society has it own very unique way of being full of sh1t.

We are all free to make efforts to clear the excrement . I am personally a big fan of "received societal wisdom". However, attempts to vary it are fine, but we should do so with due consideration.

joseph1832:
This is why I said its a personal thing, must one announce his marriage plans, and call multitude of people who will not even contribute half a penny to the couples welfare.

That is besides the point. Society recognises it. All and sundry know what it means and entails. It carries prestige and legal/state recognition, regardless of the fuss made, or those party to the actual ceremony.

joseph1832:
Even if marriage is a societal artifact, I still believe the persons intending to get married, don't need society's approval, but the approval of the person one intend to get married to, and their parents. (if need be)

That's part of the beauty of marriage - it's very light touch in terms of regulations/oversight. The institutions provides manifold benefits, with little or no downside.

So we encourage and support, rather than deter or burden. Restrictions are minimal, and once you fulfil the criteria, off you go. Society does not police you.

joseph1832:
I believe you know fully well that, we now live in the post modernist era, where everything is subjected to various degree of personal interpretation and definition, thus forming, uninformed opinion?

And there is sufficient room within it's definition and criteria to personalise it - without a deleterious effect on it's purpose - hence my reference to the dynamic of individual unions.

However, if marriage simply becomes whatever a couple want it to be, then it effectively becomes meaningless, and difficult, if not nigh on impossible for society to recognise or codify, celebrate or support.

The crux however, will be whether it delivers the same benefits at the same cost, if everyone interpretes marriage as they personally desire.


TV

You need to mobilise and attend to the following matters in turn;

Your mother - given her already poor health, you need to act quickly to ensure it does not deteriorate further. Is it best she be removed from the situation? Cared for by someone else or relocates to Lagos to be with one of her daughters?

Your inheritance - your brothers profligate ways seem like they may squander any inheritance from your father. You need to claim the shares of the 3 of you for your posterity. Is there any? Do you know the position under customary law, or your legal rights? Which code prevails?

Your brother - his choice of wife is his, and his alone. If you do not approve, or she has glaringly bad character traits - birds of a feather - your choice is to distance yourself from her/him/them.

Before marriage you can only be clear as to your concerns and why, after, you can only live with it or leave it. Are you prepared for the possible long-term consequences of standing by what you feel to be right?

But first, discuss with your sisters and ensure your husbands are on board. Then if there are any, engage the elders in your family and your village on the matter (although I see this has not worked so far?). Find some authority he will answer too. Do what you must and let your conscience be clear.


TV

joseph1832:
The very reason why marriage is suppose to be a personal thing, and as such, its suppose to be defined by the two people involve, not society or religion.

Marriage - whether you believe it is religious or culturally derived - is first and foremost a societal artefact. It is in fact, society' way of affirming the prime relationship that underpins the very notion of society itself.

It why the announcement and ceremony are very publicly carried out. The couple declare their intent to join the institution, society in turn acknowledges, and celebrates with them.

The definition of marriage remains with society - what it is, what it is for - the "dynamics" of any individual union is however, down to the couple. A seemingly minor but important distinction.


TV

...if she po', how she gon' pay


TV

tearoses:
I took my tea and coffee to Spain with me in April

So what are you waiting for na ? Please spam the thread with your holiday pix !

OP sorry eh!

TV

Truth is the best pre-marriage counselling can do is to show an intending couple they are not right, or ready for each other, or that the timing for them is wrong.

A couple that is mature enough and committed will not fail for want of PMC and a couple that aren't, will not succeed because of it.

It may make a marginal difference in preparedness or dealing with issues, but nothing more. Truss me


TV

^{...but it won't hurt sha. And you may have to do it to fulfil all righteousness}

Knightngale:
For those who disagree, what is the special advantage of having a male child?

For those from patriarchal or "son-preference" societies, the cultural imperative to have a son is undeniably strong and compelling - and can literally break homes and ruin marriages. The desperation for sons is strong - for both men and women. Thanks Lezz.

Indeed, for many - even in cultures, or for people, where there is no such imperative - the simple desire can also be quite deep. Dreams of taking your son to the match, or him growing into a striker for Arsenal, always seem that much more probable - if no less likely - when you have one. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that men and women both have dreams of, and for their sons and daughter?

I always wanted a son and was beside myself when I asked the nurse to "scan and tell jor", and it was a boy. I couldn't contain myself, ran out and told everyone. Wifey was livid !

He is so handsome I told wife to deliver "4 more like that". When the second one was on the way - and yes I wanted another son - wifey banned scanning , but I was sure it was a boy. When this orange looking thing came out crying her eyes out, I almost choked, but managed to hide my disappointment from my wife.

Now? Sure I wouldn't mind more sons, but I wouldn't swap my daughter for any number of them. Dealt with again! Thank you Lord .

I'm personally happy that the cultural imperative is changing, but we won't ever be able to trammel human desire. Agreeing or disagreeing with your post will not change that.

Siena, you had two girls and then a boy - and I've heard you say "as long as it's a healthy child" and all - but be honest with us - if you don't mind sharing;

1. Weren't you made up when you had a son?
2. With hindsight would you have been just as happy if you'd had another girl?


TV

crackhaus:
This here in bold is the reason y'all were coming at me in the first instance, and I figured that out as soon as TV started introducing children and productive citizens into the discourse.
What does criminalizing adultery have to do with raising productive citizens?

Nope, if there was any conflation between (1) sanctions for infidelity and, (2) marriage as the best vehicle for nurturing our young into well adjusted and productive citizens, that was cleared up.

You have clearly stated that (1) there should be no sanctions and, (2) that marriage is not the best way to raise children. Both of these are being discussed separately, if simultaneously

crackhaus:
The argument is this:
People should/should not be sanctioned with jail terms or fines on account of infidelity.. simple!

The rub here was whether there should actually be sanctions or not. You insisted there should be no sanctions as "the agreement was voluntary and breaking it should also be voluntary". After all, you did not agree that there should be sanctions, just not jail or fines did you?

Stillfire' take on jail times or fines merely added nuance. Here I felt that while they should not be the go-to response, they should not necessarily be ruled out. They could actually be counter-productive, as healing and restoration should be the best outcome.

Where there is no healing, the fine would almost certainly come in the nature of the settlement, although this would be rendered somewhat useless if there was "no-fault" divorce.

crackhaus:
Every other argument is as a result of TV trying to prove that infidelity should be sanctioned because a broken marriage is worse than a happy one (where people are coerced into staying married) with respect to raising productive citizens.

Again nope, the discussions are separate and distinct (1) should there be sanctions or not? with nuance around the form sanctions take and, (2) is marriage the optimal way to raise children?

Both yourself and Mindless are not just against sanctions in any form (on the basis of freewill, not wanting to coerce anyone into staying if they don't want to etc.), you also demur that marriage (as defined) is the best family setting for raising children.

crackhaus:
I didn't opine anything, all I did was refute the claim that productive citizens can only come from a marriage/family unit, which is just not true when it comes down to reality - anyone who isn't blinded by a certain bias would definitely see this...lol

Nobody - and certainly not I - ever made the claim that other family types or relationship arrangements could not produce productive citizens. I actually stated that repeatedly - the point was marriage is superior in everyway that matters.

crackhaus:
What you should be arguing is the sanctions on infidelity, not TV's linear tangent on how to raise productive citizens - the one you jumped on.

And your "no-sanctions" for infidelity did not achieve take-off, as it was based on a faulty understanding of contract law, and misapplying the concept of freewill violations.


TV

tearoses:
Oga you better kneel down and thank your God
God is really on your side
3 men!!! After intro?
I know it hurts but you will look back on this in a few years time and thank God again for your lucky escape.

Abi? Can you imagine - next level divine intervention will be to send an angel to konk his head and give him new glasses .

How far na? Got my Pali


TV

^{Meanwhile, were is Kuylie/Sambarry?}

crackhaus:
Took a while, but I suspected it was only a matter of time till you bring it down to 'not understanding marriage'.

You also fall short on your understanding of contract law

crackhaus:
I have answered all your questions -

Not this one;

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?

crackhaus:
I told you other ways by which productive citizens can become, chief of which is education.

This entry was so poor, I'm surprised you actually made it. First, we are talking about family settings and relationship types. Secondly, citing arbitrary things like education, exposure and enlightenment, as if you could explain what is qualitatively different between them , or even show how they influence the family structure to enhance children' outcomes, is a moot point.

A rising tide lifts all ships. If education is improving, it will affect all family types. Improving education is not directly proportional, nor necessarily co-relates with improved child-rearing. Did you really think about this? Attribute, virtues, qualities, characteristics, etc., are brought to the family setting, they are not in and of themselves the setting.

And if you mean the children being educated as opposed to the parents, you are still way off. Education may make you better qualified, but it doesn't necessarily cure any ills or pathologies caused by being raised in a less than optimal family setting. I have a load of well educated, but unbalanced people right here as I type.

crackhaus:
I have also told you that you can't have an optimal way in producing these citizens as there have been very influential people who were not brought up in the usual family setting...one example would be the first black president in one country somewhere.

Are you really trying to make a case by exception? If you were, you'd be best served by using someone like Ben Carson. Barack Obama was effectively raised by his maternal grandparents, a very close alignment with the real thing.

Anyway, here's something the man himself had to say; http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/23/barack-obama/statistics-dont-lie-in-this-case/

crackhaus:
What other question do you need answered when you already know and typed this:

So because I acknowledge that children can turnout good even in less than optimal circumstances, then we should consider these settings equally good, as overall beneficial, or codify them in law?

One can travel to Italy from Nigeria by taking a direct flight from MMA. One could also ply the migrant route, across deserts, using people smugglers, and at great expense & risk of death. Both are ways of "getting to Italy", and I'm sure some make it via the latter way. Does that make both ways equally good, equally feasible, or equally valid as policy? Dude, you have a busted flush, no flush sef

crackhaus:
Doesn't this already answer the first question of me naming other means by which productive people can be?
Does it not also answer the second question proving that there's no optimal way on that account of raising well-adjusted and productive
citizens?

No it does not, and, no it does not again. As explained. You may as well claim the "fizzy drink" theorem as expounded by Mindfulness. Which declares that parents/families aren't even required, you just need to teach them how to tie their shoelaces

And your pleadings here - specious as they are - are in direct conflict with your position here; https://www.nairaland.com/3070621/gay-couple-wins-custody-battle

crackhaus:
What else na?

From you? Nothing. And if you have anything other than diversionary ploys and deflectionary strategems, please show us.


TV

crackhaus:
Now he wants me to do the research for him...

You're the one telling us marriage remains the optimal way to raise well-adjusted productive citizens and you say it has been proven.

The onus is on you to back that up, not me.
Where's the research and/or evidence?

Inter-Alia;

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/marriage/teach-your-children-about-marriage/30-years-of-research
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9139483/Marriage-is-best-for-raising-children-Government-says.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/1528267/Is-marriage-really-the-only-way-to-raise-children.html
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/children/children.cfm
http://www.foryourmarriage.org/married-parents-are-important-for-children/
https://childandfamilyblog.com/children-marriage-do-better-why/

...ad infinitum

TBH, the evidence is simply overwhelming, even if there are some disputes around some aspects co-relation, causality etc. And if the research is not enough lived experience is. The differences are clear. In short, for those who can't be bothered with links I'll summarise

- marriage typically means a better standard of living - single parent homes are disproportionately poor
- abuse is anywhere from 6-10 times more likely with 1 non-biological parent
- scholastic outcomes are better for children
- delinquency and destructive behaviour is reduced for both boys and girls
- increases the chances of the children going on to have successful marriages of their own

As I've noted, children can do well in other family settings or relationship types. But all things being equal, chances are increased and outcomes better with children raised by their married biological parents.

That is my simple premise on this point. Marriage is simply the best, and makes most sense as a societal vehicle. Certainly, some may fall short, others bring character flaws and destructive behaviours to the union, but it doesn't change a thing.

No other domestic arrangement or relationship form comes close. And individual exception don't change the principle. Marriage is the best vehicle for raising children and ultimately well-adjusted and productive citizens.


TV

andymola:
Your advice will really save a brother. I'm in a relationship that's causing me pains right now. My woman accepted to marry me. We had done our introduction and have been working towards our marriage later this year. Last month, her attitude changed. She started getting aggressive. I pleaded she tell me what's wrong but she refused. I later found out she was communicating deeply with a certain man who wants to marry her. They communicate morning, afternoon and night. If she visits me, she always puts her phone in silent or sometimes puts it off. In all, she never told him she was in a relationship. This caused us so many troubles. I decided I back off since she's considering another man. She then promised to stop all forms of communication with him.
Always, she complains of been confused cos too many people are asking for her hand in marriage. Since Sunday, she's been very aggressive, she gets so angry anytime I complain abt how men call her. Anything I say now she gets angry. We were speaking on phone this night and she mentioned abt been confused again. That she doesn't want to make a mistake abt life partner. That three men are seriously disturbing her for marriage. I asked her why put other men on the line when she has accepted to marry me and I had done her introduction, she got angry and said she's a woman and she's allowed to entertain other men and asked me to cut the phone.
I'm really confused right now and need your advice. I'm typing with a phone.

Firstly, fall on your knees and give thanks - what has been revealed to you is by the grace of God and for your long-term well-being.

Now, confusion is not your problem, it's weakness and/or a lack of discernment. You are a man, you should at all times act boldly and firmly, especially after having time to think things over.

You drop her hard and fast; like an ebola ridden, shit covered, exceedingly hot brick. Don't look back, or entertain pleas from her, or on her behalf. End it now. As soon as you've read this piece - even if only figuratively at first .

And please stop referring to her as your woman - one that doesn't tell other suitors someone else has come knocking for her. In her head she is still everyones woman. Indeed, hasn't she said that much to you herself?

The next best thing that could have happened is she dumped you when the marriage proper was being planned. Every other scenario would probably have been after marriage and too woeful to even think about.

Do like I said, and yourself a favour. It may even help her reset her nonsensical thinking. She is allowed to entertain other men after betrothal - there should have been no further discussion after that - she doesn't care for, or respect you.

With husband scarcity on the rise? .


TV

Discussions would make much better progress if only people would answer questions .

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

I'm not quite sure why you ask this? But I'll answer. Marriage has always been based on lifelong fidelity and commitment. Some - like I do - believe, it was God-given, others believe it evolved through culture. Either way, it's a societal artefact for the good of the whole. And government should support it, but not seek to vary it - they didn't devise it, and they don't own it.

crackhaus:
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 keep repeating this point, but fail to see that it's a non sequitur. Can you take out gym-membership, or a lease on a rental apartment and then simply walk away from it when you choose - a contract that you voluntarily entered into? Does the fact that you voluntarily entered into it mean you can voluntarily walk away from it - without cost or sanction?

Taking vows changes the whole nature of what you can voluntarily do. Marriage comes with rights, responsibilities and obligations. You voluntarily agreed and committed to them. And they are binding on both parties. To keep repeating that one can voluntarily take vows and voluntarily not keep them - without at least showing how that is the case in any other context is odd.

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

As above. You can only say this if you don't understand what marriage is, or label something that is not marriage as marriage.

Now, the question please .


TV

crackhaus:
Education is an attribute/virtue?
Peaceful coexistence in a community, is an attribute?
Exposure and enlightenment are virtues?

Lol, now you're grasping.

When you asked me to name in-lieu of marriage, you didn't draw a line between virtue/attribute and form...not like any of the above are even virtues.

I'm not sure what inference you are drawing here? Marriage is a family structure, a relationship type. And my position is that it's the best for raising well-adjusted and productive citizens.

Qualities like education, or enlightenment or exposure, are in some ways arbitrary and, in any event, independent of the relationship form. For example, ATBE, the children of an educated men in marriage, will have better outcomes than the same educated man in a different structure. So your points are moot, in fact, not actually relevant.

If anything, qualities would have been a better descriptor than virtues. And you would have been better served by linking "real" virtues to outcomes, separate to "forms or types".

crackhaus:
Marriage remains the optimal way according to who TV01? - Did I hear someone say God? Yes I did...

Feel free to research and return evidence to the contrary. And no, education, exposure and enlightenment do not in and off themselves raise children .

crackhaus:
In that case, isn't God the one who sanctions any and all acts of infidelity?
The wages of sin is death seems not to be a good enough sanction any more according to TV01, NL's foremost marriage advocate.

I was happy to restrict it to civil marriage, but if you wish to discuss both, or conflate them, no problem.

As I said, spiritually, restoration and reconciliation is always preferred - even by God (I speak as a Christian). However, if the sin (breach, transgression) goes un-repented off, there will be a price to pay as you've noted. Not sure what you are inferring here?


TV

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