₦airaland Forum

BananaBender: What you gave doesn't qualify as a reason, more like an excuse.

Like we have different views of what is ideal, we have different ideas of what passes for a reason and an excuse.

BananaBender: You're doing jumping jacks now, I never said that. We all have different views of what an ideal world is. We can only try to make sure whatever law we come up with, is not only beneficial for the majority but tries as much as possible not to deny others their happiness or pursuit of happiness. And it has to be fair.

Burpees are the move. Jumping Jacks are for girlies .
And gay people are not being denied their pursuit of happiness. We are just not agreeing that children, long-standing traditional norms or social convention should all be forced into ensuring that happiness.

BananaBender: WOW! Are u sure?? Who could hv guessed?

The facetiousness of this remark, is matched by the flippancy with which you made it in the first place. A family member or a friend filling the gap left by a father or mother? You are obviously not a wife or mother - and probably always put your own desires first.

BananaBender: Not really. The child still has both homosexual parents. And if lucky, his/her adopted parent stays in communication with the biological parent. I want a link to where you got your research from. I need to read it myself because a lot of things are not making sense.

Two homosexual parents dont make a dual heritage. "If lucky", yeah, as long as the gay desires and vanity are satisfied.

BananaBender: I get it that a child raised by homosexuals might initially struggle with gender identity, gender roles and sexual orientation. Which to me, isn't necessarily a bad thing if parents are willing to educate their children. In fact, it might help eradicate gender roles. [Yaayy!!]

A struggling - and potentially damaged - child is not abad thing, if gay people get their way? Gender? What's that?

BananaBender: The cultural, heritage identity ish isn't working for me. I do not see where they're coming from at all. I need that link.

It's possibly the single most important thing in child wellbeing - I believe Saga posted something?

BananaBender: No active role, so nope. For the most part, heterosexuals do not have sex for the main purpose of reproducing. We have sexually active heterosexuals who are married and do not plan to have kids. Every time a heterosexual gets a vasectomy, diaphragm, or whatever, they fall into the category of 'regular people who choose to use their reproductive capacity in an irregular fashion'.

What we have sex for and what sex is for are two different things.
The fact that gays cannot procreate with each other is a fact. In principle and practice it's always sterile relationship. "Heterosexuals" may not always procreate or have procreative sex. Using your reproductive equipment normally, is first and foremost to use it with a member of the opposite sex.

BananaBender: What's so special about the gay community??

Nothing, that's why we shouldn't change things for them

TV

https://www.nairaland.com/1931502/things-nigerian-women-find-husbands

According to the above thread, the topic of this one should really be "Thread For Those Who are Not Considering Marriage - YET!!!", as 97% of women (adn I'd imagine not to much different for men) will be as some point.

Please don't leave it too long.


TV

I'd like to hear which of our singles here are in the 3% who don't care. Especially with all the "marriage is not for life", "marriage is not for everybody", marriage is not do or die" forming we hear.

Oya ladies, please identify whether you "care" or "care not" as you comment !

swagloverss: "Statistics show that only 3% of single women of marriageable age in Nigeria are undisturbed by their lack of a spouse! The other 97% would do just about anything to become Mrs. Somebody''

TV

kandiikane: What makes you think the dad wasn't a better care giver? Maybe they both worked and he was the one mainly at home. There is a difference between the relationship with the mum and the relationship with child. He may have been a bad hubby or a good hubby(we dont know the full facts) but I am certain he was a good parent for the judge to have given the man the children. If it was such as the woman says she should have appealed. I think she is just bitter that another man can take her husband.

In the West, the mother is almost always given custody. It's not so much about who is the best caregive, as long as the women is competent. Who makes more doesn't matter, as they simply move the funds from husband to wife.

Unless she's not telling something here, I don't see how the judge would have granted him custody - not if details of his lifestyle were known. Other than that, I can only think there may be truth in the activist aim of the judge?


TV

cococandy: Your points are noted.

Just for clarification. I do not champion sexxual freedom for all. I'm leaning more towards teaching sexxual conservatism/restraint for all despite gender

Cool.

And no, I'm not ascribing anything to you. But having said that, it must prove a little problematic to reconcile "let everyone do what they like - as long as they don't cause harm to others" with "leaning towards seexual restraint for all"?


TV

carefreewannabe: Good morning.

I don't want you to disprove anything, I want you to prove something.

You say homes*exuals can change. Prove it.

The homosexual lifestyle is behaviour, ergo it can be changed.
I provided a few links and also invited readers to "goo-goo it" !

I also rejected Picks, admittedly tongue-in-cheek, claim that it was scientifically established.

Homosexuality is not genetically/biologically determined. So what is it that you want me to prove?

In as much as I even use the term "homosexual", thats merely for discussion purposes. There is genetically no such thing. There are no human sub-species and humans reproduce using a male/female binary.

Some people choose to deny the alignment and proper use of this functionality - or do you want me to prove that male and female humans are designed to mate?

And yes, the whole "orientation" babble is a nonsense as well. So please be clear on what you need proving and in the meantime, I'd appreciate if you'd answer this;

If God (or nature or evolution - whatever you subscribe to) created humans to mate as male/female (and I hope you don't need me to prove that, although I can provide picture evidence - not of the mating 0, just the outcome ), why would some be "orientated" in a way that is at odds with their function? And, if you believe this orientation is innate and fixed, is it not clear that something is wrong? Or to sum up;

If orientation is different to function is that not prima facie evidence of an error?


TV

cococandy: no the parents are to blame.they are the ones raising the generation of men who give everyone the impression that sex is all about what a man is which in turn subconsciously makes people misread any innocent gesture a man makes. Even men stereotype others too. A father will most likely leave his daughter or son in the care of a woman rather than a man.

This is not fact and I'm not sure it swings anecdotally either. Firstly, I know of no partents - and definitely not men - here or in Nigeria, who raise their kids to believ that sex is at the core og being a man? Personally, and from a young age, it was always impressed upon me that studies came first - not that I paid any mind to that - but in no way was "seex" put out there as something aspirational.

Although I readily admit that it does suffuse the culture these day - everywhere in fact - I donot see it as emanating from parents. Rather something that parents need to shield their wards from. So perhaps there is some agreement there?

cococandy: some people all their lives have not heard of more than 3 cases where a woman abused a boy. But It does happen. If they reported more,no person can claim ignorant of the fact that female abusers exist as much as male abusers too. Tell me how that won't stop focusing the light on men all the time as the only gender that commits intimate offense.

Again, you may have a point of sorts, but agan, I'll also readily admit that there are likely a lot more male abusers than female. So it's right that we are equally vigilant agianst it happening from both sexes. The problem is statements like this;

ileobatojo: Not all men are molesters obviously

Which make it sound like the men that are not abusers are the exception

cococandy: apart from leading to them reporting abuse more often,it can help growing boys develop intimate consciousness or restraint. Unlike the anything-female-goes attitude some men display. Generally Women are warned severely of sexxual consequences that before we are adults,we have already become sexxually principled.

We don't know how underreported instances of female abuser are, but even if it were fully captured, I still don't think it would be as prevalent as male abusers or punished the same way. And it still wouldn;t remove the unfair characterisation of an unfair impression of men being instinctively being considered as potential offenders.

cococandy: I know a lot of persons won't agree with this point. They believe in male sexuall freedom. I don't begrudge them their opinions. But I think they don't have a right to complain when after championing such behavior,women become wary around men because of what they have been made to believe about men. They can't eat their cakes and have it.

Here agian, I can't help but see this as somewhat off point.
Firstly, the freedom of males can't be untwined from the freedom of females. And are you really saying that there exists a school of thought - and practice - that men should be allowed to make their way through life led by their libidos? And amongst parents?

And if that is indeed so, the charge would be more likely as raapists generally and not simply abusers of children.

Secondly, the push generally, is now more about freedomn for all and all kinds. As women become more libido led, are they being characterised more as abusers? Loose, maybe, promiscuous, possibly, adulterous even in some ways, but not abusers.

cococandy: I didn't see the topic stating categorically that men only sexually molest kids. So that was meant to cover every aspect of sexu'al abuse. That said,do you not see how easy it is for someone who believes men can't do without sex to also believe that a man can do anything even if it's molest a child to get it? So one thing leads to another. When they start believing one,they may involuntarily start believing the other.even when they don't voice it.

Yes, I can see that, and would make it more in line with my thoughts that your position would mean men being generally characterised as abusers, not specifically as abusers of children. The first sentence of the OP does lend more clarity however.

cococandy: agreed. But I can't speak for those who haven't been enlightened about female sex offenders. It's not their fault they only always hear about male offenders

And I agree, and I think we both agree that education about this whole thing shouldn't be sex specific. I'd go further and say that expectations should be the same as well. ALthough my inclination wouldn;t be to champion freedom for all - as I think that's part of what got us in to this mess in the first place.

cococandy: I would like to learn your opinion on what you think contributes to it.even if those my two points are correct,there are probably more reasons why the stereotype holds. So your opinion pls.

I think it's the way men are portrayed - especially in the West. IN nIgeria, if anything I'd be more inclined to say it's perhaps a little fairer, but still not close to the mark. I'd even think all forms of abuse against children are underreported.

But Nigerian men also grow up with mothers, sisters, aunts, female colleagues, schoolmates and neighbours. We are inculcated quite early intyo a culture of valuing children. My love of children and family came first, and mainly, from my time in Nigeria. And to think that Nigerian men are now running scared?

cococandy: Do you still think my opinion of the report cases being a chief contributor to the stereotype is way off the mark?

Yes, because even if women truly didn't commit any abuse and all the reports were of men, and of all their abuse of women and children, it still wouldn't be reason to characterise or imply that most men are abusers or potential abusers. Justr like the stories we hear here doesn't mean that most men are cheats or most marriages are torture chambers.

cococandy: so women are? And if your answer is yes,why?

Not women. Feminism, the media, political lobbies and the like.


TV

Morning,

cococandy: Ok let's leave the church service and programmes aside.

Ok

cococandy: Why does excommunication have to include family and friends who go to that same church with you turning their backs on you?

Probably becuase they see the church as one big family - and moreso as they probably all live in a "comunually minded" manner.

cococandy: Understood that the laws are there for the excesses,how does it help the case of someone who was leaving for their own safety?
Especially when they need a network of support from family and friends at those trying times.

Given that it will mean marriages are established better, such cases shouldbe few and far between.
I would hope they understood this could be the case in some instances and acted accordingly. I'd also imagine living more "communally" would make any abuse more visible. They'd probably have a way of bringing offending men to order.


TV

carefreewannabe: I asked for scientific proof.

Morning,

You want me to scientifically disprove something that has not been scientifically established?

That's beyond even my renowned prowess !


TV

anselm791: My guy, dey your own, if you love kids that much? Make your own. with the rate it's going now, all men are molesters until proven otherwise, and since there's no way to prove, we are back to the notion which states that all men are molesters. Lol

I used to treat the pre-teens in my church to West-End shows. Something I would have loved to do more of when I was young, and which I thought they'd enjoy.

I'd typically take around 4 of them a time - and whoever I was seeing. I loved it. The planning in spring so it would fall during the summer hols, the anticipation the kids had and most of all their sheer joy & happiness. And I really enjoyed it.

But after a while I seriously considered if I wanted to expose myself to the possible flak. How many men would love to show children some love but are put off by this nasty and unfair characterisation?

I took your advice - God blessed me with my own.


TV

carefreewannabe: Can you prove it can be changed? Just curious.

Can you prove it can't?

Google "I came out of a homosexual lifestyle" or variants.

It's a choice
Yes, it may be a strong inclination, but it is not biologically determined
It may be a serious of experiences, traumas, impressions, choices, feedback that builds up, but it is not normal
Giving it up may not be as simple as flipping a switch, but it can certainly be done. It really is a choice.

http://www.prodigalmagazine.com/on-homosexuality-its-ok-to-fight/
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/dailymusto/2012/01/cynthia_nixon_i_1.php


TV

cococandy: They lay the foundation for it.

Men are characterised as abusers and boys are to blame? Sounds suspiciously like blaming rape on scantily clad dressing by women?

cococandy: How many boys report sexxual abuse from older females? That's why the news is everywhere about male molesters but little about female molesters.

Even if boys are more aware of sexxual abuse - and to report it - by older females, how will that remove the unfair stereotype that men are the majority abusers?

cococandy: Because most parents spend so much energy giving daughters sex education that they don't give sons.
So to the little boys,it's no biggie

Say, I agree with you - and in part I do - how does parents giving equal emphasis on sex education to both boys and girls change things, except that it may lead to increased reporting of women. Even where women are indicted as molesters, they are rarely characterised or punished in the same way as men.

cococandy: Older guys act like sexing a woman is an achievement. Hence they brag about their conquests. Inadvertently making any woman around them to feel that the most important thing in men's life is sex.

How does men liking sex lead to the belief that they are sexual abusers of children? Are those that like money implicitly thieves, or lovers of food gluttons? Casanovas? Gigolos, playboys, all yes,but abusers of children?

cococandy: Some will go the length of the earth for sex.

Presumably with women, not children?

cococandy: Do you then wonder why women are subconsciously careful or wary with their daughters around male folks.even when they have no reason to distrust him.

We should be equally wary about both boys and girls. But the truth is the stereotype of men as abusers is not due to the voracious sexual appetite of some men.

To say that the stereotype of men as sexual abusers of children is due to the voracious appetites of some, or the failure of boys to report sexual abuse against them is way wide of the mark.

In the West at least, it's a common feminist trope that all men are violent/abusers/rapist etc. It's pushed by the media and even embedded into the socialisation process. And, it's part of that same trope, media and socialisation that downplays female on child abuse, amplifies male on child abuse and generally characterises males as violent.

It's now so bad, that young boys are medicalised for normal boisterous behaviour - or, simply put, because they don't behave like little girls.

I omit male homosexual abuse for the purpose of this piece, as presumably that's on boys, so although it may well feed the stereotype, should make parents more conscious of the safety of their boys.

Men &/or boys are niether the root or the solution to this unfair characterisation.


TV

pickabeau1: TV!

This science has prevailed on governments to grant them these rights..

Its a moving train

Lol

it was not science it was ideological lobbying.
Cases abound of 1. people who have renounced the lifestyle and 2. people who have willfully chosen it.


TV

cococandy: We can change this stereotype by teaching our boys right.

Only, it's not the boys that are perpetuating or the cause of the stereotype is it?


TV

pickabeau1: They r who they are and they can't change it
Science has shown that to be so also

Can you please point us in the direction of this "conclusive" scientific evidence.

Cheers

TV

BananaBender: Oh! You meant the "things" that lead to abortion.

Only if the thing that leads to abortion is the same and only thing that leads to adoption

BananaBender: @highlighted
And this would include an homosexual family right?

No

BananaBender: You still did not mention how a child that grew up in a homosexual home will suffer identity crises different from the one an adopted child would. May I add, that even children that were brought up by their biological parents still go through identity crises.

I've already answered the former part of your question. And on reflection, the latter part also.

BananaBender: No one can say homosexuals shouldn't have kids because of the sole reason that their children might suffer from identity crises. What about children that grew up in foster homes, what about adopted parents, what will be demanded of single parents??

That wasn't the only reason I gave

BananaBender: We do not live in an 'ideal' society anyway.

And therefore we should not legislate aspirationally or to ensure the best possible outcomes? Sod it, why actually legislate at all?

BananaBender: Agreed. It is the job of the parent to look for a friend or the right family member that can help with that *gap. Homosexuals already do this. At least, the couple I know. Their baby is still very little though.

If a parent is not in situ, that gap can never be breached. I hear this sop a lot, especially from those who don't have children. Raising a child isn't popping around on occasion and going out for a Maccie D's. Do parents with visiting rights ever feel fully/properly involved in the upbringing of their kids? Same thing.

BananaBender: You know, an homosexual couple could get a surrogate to help birth their child. The child doesn't have to be a total alien to the family.

It's still willfully denying a child it's dual heritage. By design. Commoditising children for the selfish desire of adults.

BananaBender: A*nal sex by heterosexuals is also an irregular use of the reproductive capacity - you know that right?

The anus is part of the reproductive system?


TV

cococandy: To get a divorce without clear proof of adultery, according to church teachings, required complete and total celibacy and no hope of ever remarrying. To remarry after a divorce with no clear proof of adultery, invariably and abruptly lead you to being excommunicated from the church entirely, wherein even your own family and close friends would have nothing to do with you.

Harsh huh? But there is reasoning behind it;

1. It focuses one to not just enter marriage anyhow - understand and commit to it with the right person
2. It puts a lid on frivolous divorce - which is becoming more common and hence normal, and aided by lopsided divorce laws
3. If you knew you couldn't simply remarry, you make every effort to get it right and keep it working. Celibacy is a motivator !
4. At a stroke it also reduces a number of societal ills
5. It's close to the bible reading - divorce does not pre-suppose remarriage

Harsh but purposefully so.


TV

Unionised: I don't know if it's just eagerness to please or inferiority complex or immaturity or just plain societal pressure, that's makes a serious minded woman not to DEFINE a relationship before jumping into it.

For fear of losing the guy, a lady would just "play along" until she can't stand the wait any longer.
Meanwhile valuable time has been wasted!!!

My advice to all parties concerned -

A relationship should be CLEARLY DEFINED from the get go.
A monthly REVIEW of progress should be carried out.
An EXPIRY DATE should be set to CLOSE the deal, failing which both parties should go their separate ways and PROSPECT other partners.

Does this sound like a BUSINESS PLAN.
Yes, we should also be OBJECTIVE about our LOVE lives.

Endorsed.

Women need to be more forthright & focused in relationships. Clocks ticking!

I've introduced a more businesslike/administrative approach to my home - and it's bearing juicy fruit.

Businesslike that is, not entrepreneurial !


TV

BananaBender: Adoption should be avoided at all costs?? Is that what you meant to say??

Yes, the things that lead to adoption should be avoided at al costs. There will be instances - unavoidably in some cases - and then adoption comes into view.

Ideally, children should be placed with relatives, failing that a solid family as close to their heritage as possible. And so on down a hierarchy of preference. At the leaset, they should be placed within a solid family setting. Or what are you finding confusing

BananaBender: I'm pretty sure a homosexual couple could do the same for their adopted child. What makes the "affection, love or embrace" different?

For a start, optimally a child needs a parent of each sex. The input from each is different, the psychological and physiological changes each one undergoes in conception, preparation on arrival and through the life of the child differ. The need for opposite sex parents is not just at inception. It's the way it was designed and the way it works best. Simples.

BananaBender: Homosexuals are regular people, you know that right?

Regular people who choose to use their reproductive capacity in an irregular fashion - you know that right?

Blow the horn - sorry about that ! - for homosex all you please, but please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that two people of the same sex produce the same outcomes as two of the opposite sex. Trying to justify the abnormal using the sub-optimal.


TV

lastpage: Aside her, l have maintained decorum with EVERYONE ELSE... and that is me. Lastpage!

But if what you do, is determined by what others do, surely it's not you, it's by them?


TV

BananaBender: Again, how is this "missing identity" different from the experience an adopted child might have in a heterosexual home??

The case of an adopted child is not by design. We recognise it as remedial, unfortunate and to be avoided at all costs. We don't legislate for it as "good and proper".

Plus, a heterosexual couple will graft the child into their lineage. The feeling of affection, love and embrace will not be any different and the child will identify with that.


TV

amaprincess: One thing i like about this section is, there are so many matured minds here.
Some said marriage is sweet, beautiful and all that, but even with all the sweet comments couples give about their marriages, we still see high rate of divorce, violence and separation.
In the society today, you see so many matured men and women due for marriage, but there are not given it consideration at all.
so many are scared. others, lost interest due to horrible heart break experiences and so many reasons.
i know marriage is not a do or die affairs, but it looks good and mystery some how. imagine two people with different upbringing, background. coming together to tolerate each other, Iive as one till the end of time, it looks amazing.
Now to those already in their marriage, pls enlighten us.
1. how do you feel being married? do you feel chain/tied down by one person for the rest of your life, or how do you see it?
2. what are the things that happen in marriage that change everything forever. like sins that cant be forgiven. its common with men once a women cheats, its unforgivable. although i dont support cheating either.
3. what words of advice can you give a young man/lady who desire marriage but scared. based on what you are experiencing now either positive or negative. what can you tell someone who is afraid of entering into marriage, so he/she don't fail (divorce).
pls honest contributions pls
Thank you.

1. I feel united with someone I can travel through life with. Who accepts me as I am and lets me be me - no, she encourages me to be me, and makes me want to be better for her.

2. Don't know/not applicable, but with remorse and repentance, anything can be forgiven

3. First, prepare yourself. Be mature and of sound character. Properly understand marriage for what it is for, what it does. Form a consistent worldview/theology of marriage. Then find someone you fancy like mad, who is of sound character, and who shares that worldview, or who is at least on the same path. Commit to them, marry, them, live happily ever after !

There, proper marriage in a few easy steps.


Best
TV

cococandy: Never mind if it's your call or not. Just wanted to know your position.

No. No inconsistencies per your words.

I will abort if I'm rapped,if the pregnency could take my life or both our lives or if the baby will be born severely deformed.
So I'm prochoice. I think that's consistent.
But if I told a young girl that having an abortion just because is wrong,she might think I'm prolife. Hence giving the impression of inconsistency.

I find people who say they are prolife but will heed medical advice to save a mother's life by abortion as inconsistent.
They will claim prolife but can't accept their wives with a baby she concieved from being rap'ed.

In order words,the right to life shouldn't be pursued by it's advocates selectively. So when next someone is 'prolifing' alongside you,try find out their true position in cases like that.
That message may do them good.

You'd be surprised at how many prolifers are actually prochoice.

No, I get you. In truth, there are probably a number who would act differently when faced with the actual choice. It's not easy and there is a lot of cultural and social pressure. Not to mention the political and media influence that is driven by differnt lobbies and interest groups.

That's why it's good to start from apoint of truth and make sure everything accords with that. There are times I would have been faced with these questions when I wouldn't have known my left from my right.

I genuinely appreciate your willingness to grasp these issues and work through them - at your own pace - and hold on to the integrity of where you are.

I've heard medics give testimonies of how they had abortions due to deformities. All their training and the voices of their colleagues must have been overwhelming. We were all in tears.

God is merciful. I pray it never comes upon us.


TV

cococandy: An opinion I share too.

Problem is,is there enough proof of that to make a law that bans homosex parents from adopting kids?

The last paragraph being the winning line they will have over every argument against them

It's not a winning arguement. In which area of human wellbeing do we take the worst outcome and set it as the standard?

Do we say that because some kids from seemingly good homes turn out bad and some from single parent homes turn out good that we should therefore normalise and champion single parent homes?

Some kids that go to the worse schols or grow up in the worse areas - Ben Carson MD is often touted here - should parents move to ghettos and send their kids to inner city sink schools to prove a point?

It's not a winning argument.

Especially in light of the fact I noted earlierabout the wellbweing of a child being directly related to the knowledge of their ancestry, culture and biological heritage.

Same sex homes cannot provide this and the child will eventually come to realise that a large part of their identity is missing. SSC often delete any reference ot the source of the "missing sex" genetic material. They'll often use an egg form one source and a surrogate from another.


TV

cococandy: Ok. Glad you're staunch in your position.
At least you're clear about that.

One more thing would that still be your stand if it happened to your wife or daughter?

My position remains the same - although I appreciate it wouldn't be solely my call.

And the "right to choose" is not pursued by it's advocates on a selective basis. So there is really no middle ground - however hard you try to find it.

Did you find inconsistencies in my position?


TV

cococandy:

As for homosex - 2 or more parents of the same sex can never substitute for 1 of each.
The sublte differences and input from both parents is key to ensuring a well-rounded individual.
The physiological and psycholigical changes both parents undergo are different, as are the skills and contriburtions of each.

Look closely, you'll find studies that tell you same-sex parenting is as good (or even better) than mixed sex parenting - it's junk science. We don't have the requisite sample sizes or benefit of historicity of SSM to conduct a comprehensive study. But we don't really need it as stated above. A same sex couple cannot deliver what a miced sex couple can - ATBE.

And I say this knowing that a mixed couple does not gaurantee success and that there will be some cases of ss couples offspring doing well. Just like in single parent homes.



TV

cococandy: So TV are you prolife or prochoice.?

Good morning and thank you too

I'm pro-life.

Take rape - two wrongs do no tmake a right, up to 80% or preganacies concieved in rape are kept. Not that I would force anyone raped to keep the pregnancy, that doen not ever make abortion a morally good or neutral choice. The statistical percentage of abortions for rape is <1%.

Take the risk of death - we keep both alive until we have to induce labour or the mother will die. Unfortunately the baby may not survive delivery. But we don't kill the baby. The termination of life is never the answer to the dilemna of death. Again such abortions are <1%

Take deformity - life is a precious gift from God. Fact is we are all "born deformed" - abi you no see our ways on NL ? - the key is to avoid behaviours or pairingd that may give rise to deformity and treat with humanity and dignity those that suffer from it. It's a reverse argument for euthanasia - do we kill the aged as they start to become deformed. Again such abortions are miniscule

There are no moral or humane arguemnts for abortion. The vast majority of abortions are predicated on selfish lifestyle reasons. And in most, the pregnancy itself should have been avoided - Pro-choice for life - pun intended.


TV

Sagamite: If you want more ammo (which Sagamite always has in reserve to bash fcktards), they were cases of Canadian Inuit/Aboriginal kids taken from their natural useless parents (or where orphans) and then put with white parents.

These white parents were all middle-class (and mostly loving) parents who then raised them and gave them the better lives than they would have got. Despite this, many of these kids ended up being fcked up mentally and had a disproportionate part of them ending up having a police record. This is despite living a more privileged and even loving life.

They all felt out of place and it would have been better to leave them with the people they identify with. There identity meant a lot to them.

http://www.cuckoografik.org/trained_tales/orp_pages/news/news5.html

Even kids with single-parenthood or step-parenthood have a more disproportionate level of troubled life than kids raised with both natural parents, talkless of homosexual parents.

Love is not everything. Identity and personal history counts a lot.

Well said Saga. It's been recently published that the biggest single indicator of a childs well-being is their understanding of their cutural, ancesteral - and dare I say it - biological lineage/heritage.


TV

cococandy: You're trying to make me argue for gay rights.
Sadly I'm indifferent to that ish.

I would be all up in arms against it,if I know of the negative effect it has on anyone apart from the couple.(To me that should be the basis of selectivity)

But I can't find any such reason all the while I've known about it, so I've kept my opinion about it to myself until such a time as when we will have the reason to backed with proof to argue against it.

Cococandy morning, as ever, you make a good fist of it, but much as I try I can’t square the circle you’ve drawn. You’ve clearly stated you agree with a “womans right to choose”. This is not selective. It’s at any stage and for any reason.

You’ve also stated that you are against incest due to the “possible” effects on any offspring – as a direct result of the parents actions. Abortion is the same – there is conflict in your position and it is not resolved by resorting to “selectivity.

Further, your position on homosex is that it’ harms no one except the two involved. But like in the first two instances, there are children involved.

The wholesale acceptance of homosex as moral means they are given the right to adopt and/or procure children via surrogacy. You cannot claim that homosexuality only affects the couple involved when children are part and parcel of the package of rights accorded to them.

At the very least you are saying being raised without a father or mother – and by design – has no deleterious effect on children. Please humour – and impress me – by squaring that circle.


Danke schön


TV

...ha, ha, ha... you and my gonads huh? . If there is anything original here you must have been up all night writing it - and with help! I'll be back to "pieces you" - there'll be no coming back from this for you EfemenaXY. I can't give this my full attention at the moment. But in the meantime, please show us where you got your definition of "gaggle from; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gaggle?s=t

As for your list, I've recently responded to or been quoted by 5 of the people on it, and 1, I don't actually recall ever having any discourse with.

Not just a dark mind, also a dirty mouth


TV

^{Damiso, I trust you'll demonstrate your usual class and ignore this bunny boiler. However, if you do decide to respond, make it quick. When I am done with her there'll be little or nothing left !}

EfemenaXY: Oh shut your trap, will you?

Who do you think you're dealing with here? Kids? Don't try to cover up your hidden agenda by trying to present yourself as some sort of saint, you two-faced hypocrite!

It's plain as day to anyone reading your post that your question was provocative just as you'd intended. It's no rocket science that you and I don't see eye-to-eye. I keep my distance from you and if you had any shred of self-respect, you'd do the same. What sort of ffool would ask a question in this format:

Excellent question Damiso!

Was there an answer to this by any chance? I couldn’t find it…

Couldn't find what? Where were you searching that you couldn't find "any answer to her question by chance"? Why would you go searching for my response - a response you obviously were dying to read - when you could have simply asked me straight out, you two-faced-lying coward? Felt it was easier to push Damiso forward, while you stand back sniggering in your usual smug, conceited way?

Now the heat's on you, you claim the bolded bit above? Warra joker.

TV01: You purposely weighed in and were out to provoke. So now you've got what you wanted, let's enjoy the ride together, my fanatical Christian Brother.




Really?

Tell that to the birds! Taking sly digs and "pressing" are your trademark. Na today?




For the second time, SHUT YOUR MOUTH!

Are you some sort of i.mbecile or what?? What do you mean by "what did I do to trigger that response?" And whether I chose to answer a question or not is none of your freaking business! If I wasn't discussing directly with you, why drop your muzzle in?

And as far as you're concerned, that debate, which obviously is the root of your vitrol is nowhere near gone. I asked you to go back to the judges and moderators to remark that argument in your favour. Why are you shying out? Isn't it what you truly want? I mean, you did question their honesty and integrity because things didn't go your way, didn't you? Thankfully, all the crap you spewed on that thread is still up for all and sundry to see.

And for the record, I don't give a monkey's about your opinion of me. Like seriously, you think I care? You think it's going to make me loose sleep at night? Or loose the skin off my nose? You better shove your head further up that a.$.$ of yours.



Don't you ever, ever, think you can wow me with your choice of words, you uncouth thing.

Gaggle? Who are my gaggle? For those who don't know the urban dictionary / definition of that word, it means: "A group, preferably of b.!tches. 5 or more"

So who are these b.!tches you're referring to. You used the pronoun "my" meaning the women who agreed with my point of view on this thread, yes? So according to you, you ss.tu.pi.d punk:

~ Jennykadry
~ Ileobatojo
~ Edwife
~ ChilliSauce
~ Greatgod2012
~ Beeevan
~ Peggykorol
~ Soonest

and anyother female on here with an opposing view to yours is part of Efe's gaggle, yes? Interesting. Lemme see you wriggle out of this one, you despicable piece of shy.te!



You wankerous cree.p! Hell will freeze over before that'll happen.

Bring it on TV01. Bring it on, brother!

PrettyPhine: @ Op. That,s a big myth. Though am single, if I get married tomorrow does not and will not make me more successful and responsible than those who have not. Marriage is not a yardstick for success, morality or being responsible, though people think when you are married u now have more responsibilities, but that does not make people in marriage responsible because a lot of couples have abandoned their matrimonial responsibilities while some do not even know the reasons for marriage. It,s true that our society these days has made married seem the ultimate, but that,s bad.

Firstly, if marriage is a goal to anyone and they associate it with success, then if they marry and marry well it bacomes a measure of success for them. You don't have to agree with that, it's just what it is. That does not mean it is the sole measure of success. Success is an abstract and individual thing.

Secondly, you are right, marriage does not make you more responsible. What it does do is give you more responsibilities, moreso if there are children involved. For men, the need and desire to provide for their families means many have to, and will, become more focused and productive. Even for women, the need to care for a family means choices are different from the single carefreewannabe days.

PrettyPhine: Meeehnn! I hate it when family members and friends ask me questions like..." when is MR RIGHT coming", "who,s the current guy now?" "when are u calling us?". It,s so so so annoying. I do ask myself, is marriage everything? I just changed my family surname to my dad's name on facebook, and that's when people rem'ber they will and chat me, asking; are u married, so u didnt invite me, is that ur hubby's name, this, that. What NONSENSE!!! I know I will get married someday, but that,s not the peak of success, and that does not make better or more successful than those who are not married. AFTERALL, THERE IS NO MARRIAGE IN HEAVEN. But am not against marriage ooo. Marriage is a good thing but not the piority in life.

Please don't be upset at your family, they have your best interests at heart - although I agree, the way many go about it could be better. There is usually an optimum window to marry and their concern - even if they don't articulate it very well - is to see that you don't miss it. Afterall you did say you want ot get married someday?

And like success, marriage may not necessariyl be "the priority", but it is "a priority" for many. And for those who know they want it, but don't prioritise it appropriately, they can find it frustrating if they miss their "marriage window".

Feel you pain, I went through it too. Hope you make the best marriage.


TV

ZERKNICHTER: no i think there is a huge difference betwenn nigeria and europe
in germany the yardstick for success is the car u drive, the house u live in the job u do

Actually, I think koning got it right.

The OP asks if marriage is a measure of success - and yes, it is one amongst many and a successfull marriage can enhance all the others and does not necessarily impair them.

ZERKNICHTER: the peope to associate having a familiy (espcially with 2+ childin) with a boring life without the freedom to do what they want to do and they dont acknowledge the hard work of raising chidren

Success is an abstract value, so if marital success has little or no meaning to certain Germans", it matters not, it may to others.

ZERKNICHTER: if u ask a young german guy how he wants his live to be like he will say: be succesfull in the job, earning much money, having as less commitments as possible, travel a lot , having a nice girlfriend, and go out with her at the weekend
the society there looks down on big familys thats why the birth per woman rate in germany is 1.4

Which proves the point and also answers dasparrow wrong inference about marriage not moving a nation forward.

The replacement birthrate is about 2.2. Germany - even with the immigrations - is below that. It will affect their national success, as they will have to rely on immigrants, who in all liklihood will come from contries with values different to theirs.

And those immigrant can not come from other European countries "like them", because they are all in the same boat - below replacement birthrates. So yes, good marriages are a measure of individual and national success and achievement. Germany will soon come to that realisation and correct their abstract !


TV