₦airaland Forum

BlackLeopard:
Actually not, BlackLeopard is sitting by, having fun watching you go in circles that don't make any sense
All your happy 'screwing with feminists', you should tell that to people like Admiral Grace Murray Hopper, because weren't it for her, there wouldn't be computer and internet like we have now on which you spout your 'women are so pathetic' nonsense. But sure, women like her and Ada Lovelace don't mean a thing to you, oh masculine connoissaeurs of history?

Women, and femininity, aren't pathetic. We'd be a screwed kind, weren't it for intelligent, brave, helpful, compassionate, and great women y'all keep dissing as terrible feminists.

I wouldn't have the cojones to mess with a real feminist. Only the unseeded NL types ! Have you given up making the case for homsexuality?

FrancisTony:
Best post over.
One million likes.

...why are you pleasuring yourself with his effete post - awon rent boy corps !


TV

Stillfire:
So it now a matter of first position? Hahahaha According to the bible the first shall be the last!!!!! Hahahaha

Stilly, you struggle when it comes to Bible. You're better with standard social discourse. Not to be prescriptive - just trying to help !


TV

FrancisTony:
Are you the same as Mranony

No. Are you repentant?


TV

Stillfire:
TV, TV
The plan of living together, side by side as equals in the garden, k-i-s-s-i-n-g.

H-E-L-P-ME-E-T!


TV

^{Kissing ke? Pa Adam was Alpha & Ma Eve was a babe - he woulda hit that !}

Stillfire:
God's initial plan was never to create an hierarchy. It was a curse. And all curses shall be broken through the blood of Jesus Christ!

Stilly, Stilly, Stilly, ah, ah! Please tell us what God original plan was?

My take;
Adam was always to be the head - hence, he was held accountable when he hearkened to Eve's voice and sinned. If they were to be considered equals, then it was clearly the woman who fell into transgression and would have bourne the consequences alone. Women - creating situations since the garden .

Shollypopzz:
@TV01: Respond to my post, so I don't have to engage this mor0n anymore.

Sholly, Sholly, Sholly, I've answered you now? Abi?? I believe in a Lawgiver and one who has given us a conscience that knows broadly right from wrong - even if it is learned to a degree. Plus you didn't answer my question about the origins of mankind?

Feminism demands a minimum of equality - a woman that chooses to let her man lead has denied feminism in it's essence - and not revoking her card is a sign of your desperation to keep your numbers up, not ideological fidelity.

Toying with feminists is getting boring !

I see BlackLeopard has flounced off in a hissy fit. Where's that mangina called FrancisTony? Let me knock his little head !


TV

crackhaus:
Should I go on?

Please do jor...give them headache Let's see them contort some more...it's fun.

crackhaus:
LOL...
TV01, are you reading this?

TV

cococandy:
so Christianity is not sexist?
Good.
We agree.

It's not sexist to me. I see leadership along with greater responsibility - and burden and accountability - assigned to men.

Feminism decries that, and views it as oppressive and misogynistic - "sexist" is a polite way of stating it from a feminist view.

So if you agree with me, then yes !


TV

crackhaus:
Love your neighbor as yourself is not equality, it's equity.

Equality aims to promote fairness and justice, but
it can only work if everyone starts from the same place and needs the same things.

Equity aims to promote fairness and justice, despite our obvious differences and needs.

Equality is used to force outcomes and make different things the same.

Case in point is SSM. An opposite sex couple can never be equal to a same sex couple. But forcing the narrative to make them equal means they have to have marriage. And then they have to have children. So wombs for rents, forced separation of children from mothers (children rights out of the window) all has to be legitimised to ensure equality.

Equality is treating things that are situational alike in the same way. It should never mean compromising the rights of one set (children) to indulge the desires of another (gays). It should not require huge amounts of social re-engineering or come at great cost.


TV

crackhaus:
Lol, why does it matter if you use KJV or not?

KJV can give people headache and it's not as amenable to sophistry as some of the more recent translations .

We all all equally heirs of grace, equal in a creational sense, but men are charged with leadership in the home and church - this should by some readings extend to civil leadership, but I'll leave that - feminism cannot abide any sense of being led by men.

Indeed they consider marriage oppressive to women and many would like it dismantled. It's clearly stated within the first few paragraphs of the wiki definition.


TV

cococandy:
@bold, all thanks to feminists.

Even little is too bad And the few remaining countries where women are still in chains will keep breathing the air of feminism blowing their way until they are liberated.

Au contrairé Coco - thanks to Christianity. And I want fundamental human rights for all.


TV

BlackLeopard:
Dude stop equating homosexuality with pedophilia, it's tiring. Child abuse is, I think we can agree on, wrong. Regardless of who does it to children.

I don't equate them - homosexuality is worse. Given cultural norms and traditions, the age of consent/marriage can be debated. And where that is so young as to be considered paedophilia is by degrees (not paedophilia in the sense of babies/toddlers 0). I consider homosexuality more or less bracketed with bestiality.

BlackLeopard:
Legitimising homosexuality? Let me see. For one, most of the civilized world respecting human rights moved on. Homosexuality isn't harming anyone, and legitimizing it doesn't really increase sexual abuse cases because plain, abusers aren't by majority homosexuals.

Speaking in a purely civil manner, one can make a case for tolerating it. But as we've seen, discussing and negotiating with sin - let alone compromising with it - merely gives it more headroom (it abounds). And it will continue to force it's way to totally colouring the social discourse. I actually see nothing wrong with zero tolerance towards homosexuality.

And Homosexuals are 6-20 times more likely to abuse minors; and at rates over 85% for minor boys.

BlackLeopard:
And in fact, I wasn't calling you either of these. I was just saying it's a thing each should consider on their own when being so strongly against at least one of those issues (homosexuality, the pedophilia is I think we can agree a different basket of fruits.)

As above. I honestly pay no heed to ad hominem and it makes no difference to me. I may even confess to enjoying it a little. In all, I cut to the heart of issues. Some issues can be discussed civilly, but I've come to see that some evils must be confronted head on and without recourse to bogus niceties.

When the talk here is now of charging people who don't give their children a positive portrayal of homosexuality . That actually implies children taken into care, and then possibly fostered out to...yeah, think about that.

No to homosexuality, no to same sex marriage, no to same sex adoption. No and thrice no.


TV

cococandy:
Of course parts of the bible is sexist and parts of it encourage violence.
Parts of it encourage inhuman treatment to others because rescripthey don't believe in the God of the Israelites
But is that christ's teaching?
No.

Any Christian who thinks the whole bible is a guide for a true Christian life will do things that can't let him/her sleep at night.

Precisely right and well stated.

However, some parts that are prescriptive jar with some feminist notions. Headship in the home and church for one. Things like abortion for a second.

Equal opportunities and access for all - parking the above/obvious exceptions - is certainly agreed upon, but to call that feminism is a stretch, as that is not about women, but about all.

And in most countries there is little, if any, structural discrimination against women.


TV

pickabeau1:
50 Shades (Zoology edition)....ermmmmm

shudders

Pukes...


TV

Shollypopzz:
I have heard lowering the age of consent more from heterosexuals. And I can post linkS to articles that many heterosexuals have written on the issue. Btw, your point is redundant because this doesn't prove anything.

Fagtivists can be homo or normal. It's as much a mindset. But NAMBLA would be a good place to start. The homo lobby are very good at timing owe they present their perversions. Expect to hear more on this in the future.

Shollypopzz:
This is why I find you extremely weird and boring. Why are u saying the same thing over and over again after you've been corrected?? The numbers are online. Please get your facts from a credible source.

Shollypopzz:
You should ask yourself why there is a high rate of domestic violence in the gay community.

For lezzas - it's becuase women are the more violent sex and a feature of their sexual pathology is psychological unbalance.
For Packers - it's because the moderating - yes moderating -female influence is missing and the risky behaviour of men heightend.
Women remain safest in marriage - I love saying that !

Shollypopzz:
They do not have an INBORN conscience, conscience is developed over time.

I stand corrected in a sense - but it still develops with an instinctive - if broad - sense of right and wrong

Shollypopzz:
Just mouth, no sense. Boring! You are the one that has to prove objective morality, not me.

How do we agree on any laws if we can't ascertain an oblective morality (right vs. wrong)?


TV

njokusboy:
Lolzz, is bestiality wrong because it is animal abuse??
What is even animal abuse?
If slaughtering a cow for breakfast or throwing a live lobster into a pot of boiling water I wonder what other assault on the animals "sovereignty" is bigger to be termed so.....
Animals have no rights

...omo, you will not only live long, but also full and joyously. In my rush I totally omitted to make that point. It's actually been shown that some animals actually enjoy or at least have no real trauma from bestiality (incidentally, also one of the same arguments that homos make about sex with children). Would a bull really prefer butchery to buggery ?

Please - the lengths fagtivists go. Like I said, every point fails even basic scrutiny


TV

Shollypopzz:
2.) It's silly to lump things you don't like into one category just because you don't like/approve of them. Bestiality is often considered a type of animal abuse. Pedophilia is non consenting in one party and is torture to the younger party.

"Considered"? I group them all together as dysfunction in human sexuality. Parphilias and/or fetishes. Be it an animal, child, same sex - they are all disordered .

Shollypopzz:
A child can absolutely give consent! How can a child that is not of age give consent? Yes, it is a statutory point and it shouldn't be dismissed.

Homos know that - hence their continuing push for lowering the age of consent

Shollypopzz:
3.) I didn't disagree that lesbians suffer from domestic violence more than any other group. I only corrected your claim that male homosexuals come next. So??

Lezzas, then Lifters. And when we specify "marriage" as opposed to just "domestic", we have the safest type of domesticity for women and children. That warms the heart of NL's chieftest marriage advocate and purveyor of marital bliss ! Even without specifying marriage, it's still Lezzas then Lifters!

Shollypopzz:
4.) The issue with morality is that there are different moral standards. Moral is influenced by culture, religion, society and family values, thereby making it subjective. There is nothing like an inborn conscience.

Humans beings do not have conscience?
So, right or wrong is what we (majority) decide it is - at any given point?

Shollypopzz:
BTW, if you want to argue morality from a Christian standpoint, let me know so I can ignore your ass. If you agree with me that there is no objective morality, then EOD.

From a Christian point my position is fixed. If you want to do it in the abstract, shoot - you'll prolly miss there as well .

TV

BlackLeopard:
Exceptions exist to every rule, that doesn't really prove the average of something is invalid.

Implying that "consent" is almost always equal to morality is not a rule.

BlackLeopard:
The only people who fetishize children are sexual predators.

Meaning nothing more than most homosexuals are also sexual predators. Something else the homosexual lobby has fought hard to hide and shut down debate on

BlackLeopard:
Which may or may not be homosexuals, but on average? Most are heterosexual men (look up the average statistics, the figures speak rather clearly on this globally.) Not closeted homosexuals. Not even pedophiles (as in oriented toward children.)

Nope. Clearly evidenced and presented in the link I provided. Homosexuals are 6-20 times more likely to molest children than normal men and when it's male children alone, that figure is over 85%. Pederasty has always been a key theme of homosexuality. There is a youth fetish amongst homos.

BlackLeopard:
Besides, you're using wellbeing of children as a straw man here. I doubt you care for well being of children, you're using children as objects in your hypothetical debates when you need to shut someone else up.

No, I absolutely care about children being the father of 2 lovely ones. No one is shutting anyone up. State the case for legitimising homosexuality, normalising it, and embedding it into the culture. There is simply no case. I will rebutt any case you try to make point for point- with no fuss. Keep calling me a closet gay or secret pedo all you want .

Elton John - a 67 year old man - artificially concieves a child and then willfully removes him from his mothers care so he can play vanity families with his rent boy - he cares about children abi Child abuse!!!! Child services here would never let a 67 year old man (as part of a normal couple) adopt a child.


TV

pickabeau1:
The lifter lifted it to prove a point about men's weakness

No one could have known you were making a satirical piece... no need for the jab on intelligence

Arguing can be fun at times though

---

TV01

Christian feminist - can I hear oxymoron

...sometimes without "oxy" sef !

I went to the blog and read that piece - granted it may have been a little tongue-in-cheek, but it seemed to be making a serious point.

Whatever the case, the bible is clear;

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.


TV

BlackLeopard:
Actually yeah, the only difference between a lot of moral vs. immoral IS consent. (If I take someone's thing? It's theft. If they agree with me grabbing it? It's totally not.) So not only moral vs. not, but whole the legal basis from that point in most states as well.

A lot - not all?

BlackLeopard:
Children cannot consent. It's not a question about wordz even. It's a question of biology. They brains aren't developed to grasp mature matters on adult level, therefore they cannot consent, period.

Adult brains aren't fully developed till around 24 on average.

Homosexuals are notorious for campaigning for a reduction of the statutory age of consent
Homosexuals continue to push for increasing sexualisation of our children - I posted liinks earlier - legally consent is merely a statutory concept, not a biological one . Who are you tryong to dribble

BlackLeopard:
But continue equating choices between two adults to all the abominations like child rape.

Consent, choices, word sophistry does not make the deviant right, or the immoral good.

BlackLeopard:
(By the way, there was some studies out there the only people so obsessed with thoughts about what's pedophilia and not, are pedophiles themselves. The rest of the society don't give a flying Bleep. So, present gentlemen being all about kiddies? This speaks volumes about you.)

Show us the studies. Is it the same one that says people who are disgusted by homosex are closeted gays . I guess in lieu of a moral compass, sound science, or intellectual honesty, tropes must suffice .

Go and find yourself an anus to rummage around in - your choice


TV

njokusboy:
True feminists consider any teaching that stands at variance with theirs to be sexist...
Most religious teachings stand in contrast with what they preach and am still talking about Christianity, They prolly consider ALLAH to be not only sexist but a misogynist as well...
Religion and feminism are like water and oil, they cannot mix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.[3]

Feminist movements have campaigned and continue to campaign for women's rights, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to work, to fair wages or equal pay, to own property, to education, to enter contracts, to have equal rights within marriage...

Main reason why a supposed "Christian feminist" is neither fish nor fowl...they stand in contradistinction to one another...especially regards marriage...all the creative massaging of scripture cannot change that...


TV

Shollypopzz:
It's not sexism but one gender is on top

[img]http://.net/i/166.gif[/img]

...of the hierarchy. And more telling responsibility...otherwise Eve' transgression would have been solely on her own head - but Adam was held accountable for his wifes actions.

We can perform on-line deliverance for you if you like .


TV

Shollypopzz:
I am so mad I came to this thread late, I feel like the mumu trying to keep a dead thread alive.

Dull of mind and body - stop drinking from that toxic ideological stream and feeding on spiritual detritus

Shollypopzz:
Equating homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality makes no damn sense.

It makes exact sense. They are exactly alike, (deviant) paraphilias - afterall, y'all claim homosexual feelings are natural inclinations don't you?

Shollypopzz:
What he meant by love between the two is "consent". A child cannot give consent, neither can an animal.

1. A child can absolutely give consent - and the issue of consent regards children is a mere "statutory point"
2. And gay-homosexuals know this, hence the reason hy they are the main drivers in the campaign to keep lowering it.
3. And consent does not make a thing moral

Shollypopzz:
Olodo Pastor, lesbians are gay too. You meant male homosexuals right?? Wrong! ...... females in heterosexual relationships come second in regards to victims of domestic violence.

Gay is typically used in reference to men - and lesbian to distinguish female homos.
Nope it's lezzas, then fairies. Can you imagine? It must be all the rectal violence ! Who comes first from your sources? Bristling bull-dykes no?

Shollypopzz:
You were making sense until you mentioned morality. Unless, there is an objective and inborn morality, this point should remain in the trash.

Yes, fagtivists hate to talk about morality or the essence of what homos do physically. But we allhave consciences - no to mention the functional teleology of male/female is obviously beyond gainsaying.

There is a moral law and a Lawgiver. We shall all answer.

TV

FrancisTony:
Argument closed. No more replying and nobody should give me a mention again.

My thumbs aches!

Couldn't resist one final one. Na only thumb ache? How's your back? !


TV

Shollypopzz:
@crackhaus: Thank you jare! I always side-eye these christian feminists that blatantly deny the obvious sexism in the bible. BTW, do Christians really believe the Adam and Eve story to be true?

Welcome

There are no such things as "Christian-Feminists" (aka Femistians ); they are the most deluded bunch around. Like Pickabeau1 says "oil & water"

It's not sexism it role division and hierarchy. Men on top ! Note 1 Peter 7 below; equally heirs, but different in role/responsibility.

How did human beings come to be?


Timothy 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.


1 Peter 3 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands... 7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.


TV

crackhaus:
That article is a very poor attempt at sounding intellectual, very poor - the best way to misinterpret the scriptures is to try applying logic in its interpretation, and that is what the writer did.

Bro, there are too many things wrong with that article... I would have loved to tear it apart bit by bit, but my fingers ache right now.

Word C. Very well written!

It seems like this FrancisTony doesn't even have the capacity for critical reflection, let alone original thought.


TV

^{...no need to tear this one apart bit by bit...the single swipe mauling you gi' am don reesh !}

FrancisTony:
Too bad, I don't quote rètards.
I'm not here to impress anyone and I stand with my ideology no matter the useless tag I receive.

You are a deviant apologist

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/v14n2/Vol.%2014,%20No.%202,%203%20Baldwin.pdf

They want to sexualise and indoctrinate young and impresssionable school chidren - in order to exploit and violate them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11517177/Promote-gay-relationships-as-positive-in-school-teachers-say.html
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/apr/05/schools-should-teach-positive-portrayal-of-same-sex-relationships-says-nut


TV

^{...I won't apologise for derailing. This issue is too important for bogus protocols and genteel civilities}

njokusboy:
Francistony, did you say you whooped this dudes a's's.... I wonder how...
Can I get a link... so I can decide?

FrancisTony:
First thread that we came across https://www.nairaland.com/2232890/please-homosexualism-natural-chosen-lifestyle/3#32301984
2nd thread https://www.nairaland.com/2247718/jide-macaulay-nigerian-gay-pastor/6#32567268
His last post on that thread and it was filled with vitriol. https://www.nairaland.com/2247718/jide-macaulay-nigerian-gay-pastor/7#32573095

I actually read the first of those threads; not only did you not "whoop" anybody' ass, you made a number of decietful & fallacious statements.

At emboldened, Yes!, Homosexuality is controlled by gene - research to show yourself approved

Lie, twin studies would prove this beyond all doubt - all the studies so far have shown that identical twin brothers (who are genetically identical) are no more likely to be gay than fraternal twin brothers; at around 11%.

Gays love theirselves unlike bestiality(who only satisfy themselves by having sex), same as paedephiles.

Another lie; "Animal lovers" and lovers of children, both claim a real love and that the "sexual contact" is both beneficial and welcomed by the object of their affections

It might interest you to know that homosexual men have peaceful marriage and co-existence more than heterosexual married man and woman.

Yet more lies; fact lesbian relationships are the most violent, closely followed by gay ones.

You also affirmed missclassy' blatant lie that homosexuals are born that way. Not true. Babies are not born sexualised, they are born functionally equipped to mate with members of the opposite sex. The prompts to activate this kick-in later. If that does not happen, it's due to malfunction. End of. And even if it was natural, it does not make it moral. Nature does not determine morality or force behaviour.

You are the one who needs to do some research ! Although I rather suspect that in order to appear enlightenend, liberal and progressive you have wedded yourelf to certain ideological positions and don't actually care for the truth a smuch as you do your sense of ideological smugness.

Not only are you bemedalled save-a-hoer, you are also fast becoming NL' Main "Fagtivist". Carry go, but you do know you've lost this one - given the array of mature and critically thinking people ranged against you - not to mention Gods truth !


TV


...and one other thing, homosexuality is closely aligned with pederasty (paedophilia).

^{cc lezz craziebone}

LordReed:
The number one characteristic of an arranged marriage is that the initial choice is not one the intending couple make but is made for them by family.

I don't agree - if one uses a dating service or the internet or friends introduce a couple, does that make it an arranged marriage?

The choice to marry is always the couples. And in many case the decision to even meet. Although the whole point of having others filter prosepctive spouses is to ensure a high degree of suitability.

LordReed:
A forced marriage goes on to negate any choice either of the intending couple may indicate. This makes forced marriage a SUBSET of arranged marriage.

Per my response immediately above, it does not.

If a couple meet - say randomly and then ask for their parents permission - in lieu of which they will not marry - does that indicate an arranged marriage?

LordReed:
BTW I don't even know why this is an issue as I am not even discussing the merits or lack of.

Neither do I. I'll try harder to read threads through in future


TV

5minsmadness:
I've stated my opinion. tv01 has put it very nicely there again. if you keep on insisting that NOTHING GOOD AT ALL can come out of arranged marriage then there is nothing more to say. let's agree to disagree.

I'm sure the sense in the premise will assert itself .

I was actually about to post further;

Funnily enough, a "prospective spouse", that is well grounded in their marriage culture and has a good understanding of what is required will effectively "self-police" in lieu of any "arranging framework.

And in truth, one properly ready for marriage should be able to do so. I certainly did. I searched for, located and vetted my wife all by myself. I then introduced her to my family and presented her at family settings (and vice versa).

In some ways, it was "reverse arranged". More so, as we met when I was invited along to an occassion by a friend - specifically because there would be eligible women present.

Further, after having initially met her, my friend was able to provide some basic background info which helped expedite things.

Many of the elements of "arranged" were present, just not in the customary manner.


TV

LordReed:
A forced marriage is arranged is it not?

Yes - and how does that make arranged and forced marriages categorically the same or similar?

All marriages are arranged in the sense you speak of. Without "arangement", no marriage happens.


TV

LordReed:
You do realise that forced marriage is a subset of arranged marriage don't you?

Pray tell, how do you come to that conclusion? I must onfess to not reading the whole thread - did I miss something posted earlier?

In an arranged marriage, consent from the two prospective spouses is required - in fact, the decision to actually meet is down to them. How does that equate to forced?

All arranged marriages do is facilitate and provide oversight.


TV

5minsmadness hi,

Love your premise. Meant to post a while back after reading the OP, then the thread and I kept on missing each other. I am absolutely a fan of arranged marriages and would consider then objectively better than those termed love marriages.

I don’t personally consider an arranged marriage one where, sight unseen, two families agree to marry off their children – without recourse to them and possibly before they are even born – sometimes for some other underlying reason such as an oath or debt. I consider those forced marriages.

For me, arranged marriages in the good/proper sense, is where the parents/elders take an active role in helping set selection criteria and vetting potential spouses. The final decision still rests with the two individuals.

It should of course be preceded by grounding their children in what marriage actually is and what it entails in a real pragmatic and practical sense. And have particular emphasis on what character attributes are essential for a fulfilling marriage.

It can be fairly loose or more formal and can even take on a more communal feel. A great example of this is the debutante season that was a highlight of the social calendar here in times past.

All it really entailed, was families of a certain social standing arranging for their young men and women to make social contact in an enabling environment – and hopefully things would natural happen. I know this may be a little harder in our more global times, but it is absolutely doable.

I think Ewuro4 mentioned plans for something like that at a family level. I actually know of someone who entered a much more formal arranged marriage – “only because I want to please my parents” – after 3 years she was totally in love. Why? She had a husband who acted accordingly – and ultimately that’s what sustains marriages.


I followed BabyOsisi' marital advice to new and intending thread and the one thing that struck me strongly was that most of the women would have been much better served and most of the issues raised obviated by involving their elders in their relationships. And at it's heart, that's what arranged marriages are really about.

Good one


TV