₦airaland Forum

Contestant #1 For the motion.

"Is Marriage a Life time Commitment"

The short answer here is yes.

But why you may ask?

Firstly, let me start by defining marriage;

“Marriage is a monogamous, lifelong union between one man and one woman”.

But why?

Because at it’s heart, marriage is about procreation and the raising of children. And a male and a female are all that are required to do just that (A).

Marriage takes biological functionality; man + woman = children and perfectly solves a social need; how do we best - and at least (social) cost - raise the next generation?

Certainly, there are other benefits and considerations, not least companionship, but none of the subsidiary benefits need to be, or are necessarily benefited by being institutionalised in their own right.

Whatever one believes, this anthropological reality is inescapable. There is no real social benefit or requirement for state intervention in any other human relationship that cannot be readily dealt with by contract law.

And intervention by the State, where it occurs, should be to shore-up, support and strengthen the institution. Marriage pre-dates the state – and organised religion - and it is not the State’ place to vary it – in any way.

So to capture the essence as well as the definition, marriage may be captured thus;

“Marriage is a monogamous lifelong union between one man and one woman, which is open to children”.

Open?

But why?

Because although in principle husband + wife = children, for various reasons children may not be the result. So whilst It may not always be the case in practice, the principle and the reality holds. Still today, the vast majority of children are born within marriage.

But even where procreation is not the outcome, the model remains the best for rearing any children if the couple decide to foster or adopt. However, the axiom is maintained, even where children are not a consequence and society is strengthened.

The balanced input of both genders is essential for the proper psychological development of a child. The input from either gender will vary through the child’ development, but it is noteworthy, that in the first few years of life, a mothers input is most critical, while a father comes into his own as children become older and develop greater awareness – especially regards gender (B).

It is also worth noting – especially for those that would try to vary the definition or alter the essence – the UN has codified by charter, that children have the right to be raised by their biological parents (C)


So having established what marriage is and exactly what marriage is for, I’ll proceed to show why it should be a lifelong commitment.

Divorce is devastating for children. And it is traumatic for couples – even those without children. It can also create dissension between the “wider” family. Divorce has even been shown to have a negative impact on the economy (D). What’s not to hate?

Child rearing & care do not necessarily end when children are grown up. Children often need advice and assistance even as adults and not just moral guidance or financial support.

Grandparents can be greatly influential and serve a crucial role in nurturing successive generations. Helping to raise and stabilise their own families – and reinforce the husband/wife union - and wider society. The generational benefits of marriage are manifold.

Dissolving the union even if the children have attained adulthood is negative as it relays the wrong message and shakes faith in the institution. Not only in children of the union but also in wider society.

Marriage unites a man and women in commitment to each other and to any children that they may have. Where there are children, the wife typically makes a disproportionate sacrifice during their formative years. Broken marriages on the whole leave women and children economically worse off where the children have not attained adulthood and the wives where they have.

Some of the corollary benefits of marriage come into their own as the marriage matures. Most notably friendship & companionship, which are life-sustaining and enriching as the couple age.

One must understand what marriage is and what it is not. Marriage is not solely the validation or solemnisation of adult desires – no matter how much love is claimed or how strong the desire is. One could also ask “why not have short or fixed-term marriages”? Perhaps even with contractual stipulations? Any such notions would be spurious, defeat the purpose of marriage and not actually leave society with a vehicle that serves us as marriage does. Not to question why any such arrangement could not be instituted apart from marriage? Why change something that has served so many, so well, for so long?

Historically, societies that have repudiated marriage – especially as a means of normalising sexual behaviour – have done so at their own peril. Whatever the attainment or progress of any society or nation (nation being meant more in the “people group” sense), the family has underpinned that flourishing. Marriage - more than any other thing and better than any other way - establishes families.

So again,

“Marriage is a monogamous lifelong union between one man and one woman, which is open to children and rightly witnessed and celebrated by society”.

Please don’t ask me why.

Enjoy your marriages and families this weekend. I certainly will.

TV


A. Noting that polygamy is not idea. Not delivering the same benefits, having various drawbacks, and usually underlying imperatives other than procreation and nurture.

B. Any re-arrangement of genders violates the definition of marriage as children are impossible in principle and in practice to couples of the same sex. Those who argue that the genders are interchangeable are simply wrong. To claim that two males or two females can deliver the same input as the historical and still almost universally accepted male + female model is not validated by any critical study. http://www.fatherhood.org.au/resources/21%20Reasons%20Why%20Gender%20Matters%20A4low%20res.pdf
http://www.whygendermatters.com/

C. http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/child.asp; http://www.unicef.org.uk/Documents/Publication-pdfs/UNCRC_summary.pdf

D. http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1112/how-divorce-can-adversely-affect-the-economy.aspx

E. Experience, life, anthropological history

Haven't read the whole thread, but did anyone mention my personal favourite - "Reverse back"

TV

How warped we have become.

At the ages when children require 24 hour care, ideally that care should be provided by a birth parent - preferably the mother. Anything else is less than ideal. Even where the proxy is a close relative i.e. grandparent/aunt.

To argue that a family - where young children are being raised - and a career are perfectly compatible is simply wrong. Yes, we cope with the circumstances presented to us. But it is not ideal.

At least whilst the children are pre-school, it is in their best interest to be raised by their mother. Who as a mother is totally satisfied that her children are being raised best by a househelp, nanny or at daycare? You may be because it allows you to pursue your "career", but you cannot be if it's a question of what's best for your offspring.

If at all possible the father should provide 100% of the income during this time. It's better that they forego some creature comforts and give their offspring the best possible foundation. And being a stay at home mum (SAHM) with children, is a FT job and every bit as important - even if not quantified the same way.

I wonder at those who would equate a job - even if you fancy it up as a career - with raising their children. And even go as far as to prioritise the job. Simply forego or time children more responsibly.

And double wonder at those who feel that because they may well choose to be housewives, women should not be educated. Pejorative and contradictory thinking.

TV

chaircover: Please what is "CC"

"Caring and Committed" for the purpose of the debate - not to infringe on your copyrighted version !

chaircover: TV this your grammar sef

I've stepped it down small na .


Where are the champions of wanton permissiveness? Totally ignoring the heartache, pain, suffering and destruction that usually ensues after SBM.

TV

Hmmm....would've thought -and quite liked - for the wider discussion to continue. Presumably input is now open to all?

Obinoscopy: @Chaircover I had to quote the coodinators's post for you to have a grasp of the context of the debate.

I am not endorsing sex between teenagers who are not yet ready to get settled. I'm not endorsing sex between youngsters who don't know the meaning of the word "commitment." My debate is for two consenting adults who love each other and are courting.

From a societal point of view, this position is patently unworkable. Sex before marriage is sex before marriage. And even the merest consideration makes it pretty clear that you can't restrict it to those "intending to marry". I touched on this point in my submission. The human condition and peoples tendencies are clear, once you open the door, it's a slippery slope. To wit;

How would you enforce this? Especially given as people are increasingly repudiating religious stricture and societal norms. It would at best apply to a few "well-intentioned" (although ill-advised) believers.

What of those who consider their relationship committed or permanent, with marriage being a possibility, but by no means certain and possibly not in the near future. Westerners often have long engagements. SBM for 5 + years?You would be simply unable to draw or enforce a line for this.

Look at abortion and abortifacients (morning-after type pills). It was claimed they would only be used in extreme case of danger to mothers health, rape etc. They are now routinely used as everyday birth control, period!

Obinoscopy: So the issue of abortion or unwanted pregnacies needn't arise. The pregnancy may even be the much desired trigger factor for the couple to tie the nuptial knot.

Wrong, most couples want children after the nuptials. Whether that be due to the stigma or just not being ready/settled in the run up or just after marriage.

It would probably lead to contraception, which is in itself dangerous for women. Men rarely take responsibility here.

Obinoscopy: As regards my calling God's name. I wonder why you say I shouldn't call His name. I'm yet to see a verse in the bible where God spoke against sex between two adults who are already engaged. The bible only spoke against adultery and fornication. Fornication or sexual immorality is between two people who don't even have any intentions of getting married.

Unbiblical. The marriage bed is undefiled. The only biblically legitimate context for intimacy is between man and wife. It's worth noting that a biblical betrothal was not like our modern day engagements. There was no going back. Hence Josephs mind to "put her away". You can't divorce someone you are not married too.

Again this would be held by only a few hard-core believers. I opened my submission acknowledging the fact that people are increasingly moving away from religious stricture. You can't make it the mainstay of your position - although a noteworthy reference - in this debate.

Obinoscopy: Finally you talked about virginity. I encourage ladies to keep their virginity intact. However I'm of the opinion that a lady may lose her virgin to a guy who has already proposed. After all, they will eventually get married.

It is hoped/expected. But this is not certain even for the religious. Plus deception is a real possibility, which is something you yourself allude to, as I'll point out next.

Obinoscopy: The essense of having sex before marriage is to ascertian if all the couples told each other about their sexuality is actually true. For instance, a guy might claim he is potent and fertile. The lady might claim she has high libido. All these can't be verified unless they do it .

Here you repudiate your own point of "After all, they will eventually get married", because clearly "verification" has to take place prior to marriage in the model you propose and failure means "end-of". People can pretend sexually as well as other ways.

Like everyone else that proposes testing you fail to -or ignore - some obvious considerations;

How does one acquire the competency to test? Sebi na virgin?
What does one test for? Thrust power, girth spm (strokes per minute), what? Let me leave out WTB's own for modesty' sake!
How long? Presumably you'd have to practice and perform
What prompts sign-off? Consistent heavenly feeling? Multiple HF? Delivery of a bouncing baby boy?

It means the potential to call off due to non-verification is unlimited. It's a charter for permissiveness and always pushed by those who were probably wanton. Unrepentantly so and hate being convicted.

Obinoscopy: Marriage is a life-time commitment, we don't want after regrets. We don't want a woman to go into a marriage with a man who never give h orgasms for the rest of her life without her pre-knowledge, it would be cheating on her. The same applies for the man.

Another falsehood;

Firstly, even were there is mutual desire and affection. It has to be worked at and sex "evolves between couples.

Secondly, there is understanding/education/counselling for poor form or style. That's why you get with someone who cares and is committed as they will make the effort to satisfy you.

Thirdly, marrying a "CC" means they will not put their satisfaction first. All this "I must test, I must test" is about self-serving types, who typically can't put sex in context, short or long term.

Fourthly, at best it's a snapshot. Life tends to happen in a marriage. Listen to the guy lamenting about schedules "dulling his dongle". What has that to do with compatibility? Circumstances, situations, stress, illness, pregnancy and birth - i.e. Life - will all impact a couples dynamic when it comes to love-making. Couples typically smooth and manage their sex lives as best they can. That's why you get a CC. If sexual compatibility is key, is divorce in view if it disappears, short or long-term?

Fifthly, great sex does not make a marriage and won't of itself save one. After a point it can't have more than marginal value.

Sixthly, let me rest jor!

TV

ifyalways: @TV1,If a anyones sense of reasoning can be affected by the quality (and quantity) of seex he or she recieves,then the person is neither ready nor ripe for marriage. Why? would he propose marriage to any lady/guy that offers him or her seex after or within the course of marriage,or you think no-seex before marriage guarantees fidelity?

If sex has a binding effect(your words) ,why then do two adults in a relationship not be allowed to bond as soon as possible,why wait till wedding day only to find out they can't bond because of differences in wants and needs?

Talking about diseases,what happens to the couple who didnt do seex during courtship but still got hit with conditions like weak or no erection. What if the other partner cannot deal with it?

When you say,no seex before marriage-does that cover deep kissing,anaaal seex ,fingeeering ,masssturbation and any other thing excluding vaaaginal sex?

In your last paragraph,you qualified sex before marriage as a non-chaste relationship. So, if a woman nags/a drug addict,a man is violent/is a drunk etc so long as they dont do seex,the relationship is chaste and OK?

It's TV01.

All your questions - the ones I can make sense of anyway - have been answered within my submissions on this thread. Please take time to read if you so please.

Best
TV

Efemena_xy: I find what you've written here, especially the bolded bit quite contradictory. You state quite strongly that the sexu@l practices engaged in by homosexuals isn't sex. Sex between a couple, be they same sex or opposite sex is not always based on v@gin@l intercourse. It is common knowledge that penetrative sexu@l acts such as @na.l sex and Or@l sex are practised by both heterosexu@l and homosexu@l couples.

Going by your argument then, that any penetrative act of sex that isn't v@ginal is real sex, then are you saying that heterosexual couples can engage in them pre-marriage? And there is nothing wrong with it because they aren't the 'real' thing for which conception can be achieved from?

You've stated clearly that marriage is open to anyone, so that includes the GLBTs (Gays, Lesbians, Bi-sexuals and Transexuals) and yet you do not recognize their sexu.a.l acts, even though heterosexual couples do engage in them? Isn't that a tad bit confusing regarding your stance on this matter?

It's not confusing if you grasp the reasoning. I'll explain further

Only vag1nal intercourse is conjugal and procreative. Sodomites do not/cannot practice this.
Other acts may well be deemed s3xual in nature if they give pleasure or arouse, but they are not procreative. That is the basis of marriage.
I believe any type of intimate act should be abstained from prior to marriage.
Bar deformity, disease or accident, all men and all women are functionally the same. Self identifying as a homosexual or practising sodomy does not change this fact of nature. They are free to marry members of the opposite sex. Check out the Mayor of NY' wife!

Efemena_xy: Re the bolded bit: How would a person know whether or not they are able to physically consumate marriage if they've never tried it out in the first place? A man with erectile problems cannot determine that he has that problem without first engaging in sex, can he? More importantly, how can they tell if they'll even enjoy the act in the first place? And this brings me to the all-important point about one's sexual identity.

I think you should re-consider this or talk to a man about it. Not sure you'll take my word. But in the spirit of debate here goes. Men know when they are aroused or if they can't be. Generally, or by someone in particular. I've repeatedly stated the kind of person people should be getting with.

Efemena_xy: There have been cases of partners already married, discovering that they prefer being with the opposite sex. Now, if the 'sins and ills' of pre-martial sex have been rammed down their throats from the very beginning, how do they get to know what they really are? i.e being gay, bi-sexuals, and so on. I'll tell you: They only find out after marriage and as you can imagine, both parties involved end up being frustrated and eventually seek solace 'outside'. This eventually leads to marital affairs and eventually divorce. Do you not think it's a lot better to discover what your preferences are from the onset and risk having a broken engagement rather than a broken marriage (possibly with kids involved)?

Everyone knows who and what they are attracted to, or indeed, if they have no such feelings at all. And no one needs sex to determine that. You are grasping here. Did you not realise you liked men until you had sex with one?

Efemena_xy: I disagree.

The sooner we as a society recognise that sex is incredibly important to a lot of people, with sexual compatibility a necessity for a great marriage, then the better for us all. Sweeping sex under the carpet as though it doesn't exist or adopting a prudish attitude by not being open with our youngsters about sex does more harm than good - as cited by your example of the pregnant teen. How can you tell if you're sexually compatible unless you have sex? The insistence that premarital sex is dirty or perverse makes it so much harder to have necessary and much needed conversations.

You are both wrong and mostly disagreeing with yourself.
Sexual compatibility is assured if you approach mate selection in the proper manner. I've touched in this repeatedly.
Not once have I said sex should not be openly and thoroughly discussed. Just not engaged in prior to marriage.
Not once have I said it is dirty or perverse, just best restricted to marriage

You don't need to have sex, just be caring and committed. Deep people can even proceed without being attracted initially. But once they deeply know, care for and commit to you they know the attraction will follow. But like I said, that's not for everyone. It's for those that understand and appreciate sex in context and are not controlled by it.

Efemena_xy: Finally, going back to your earlier point about Abrahamic religions - these are pre-medevial religions founded over two thousand years ago. At the end of the day, sex is something which we, as individuals need to make up our own minds on, rather than consult a bronze-age book written by some tent-dwelling nomadic goat-herder in the middle of the desert. If they couldn't get the slavery thing right, how much moreso, or better still, what makes you think they've nailed the sex issue?

Since I have the benefit of the medieval goat-herders and neo-modern thinkers such as yourself, am I not privileged? I make a fully informed choice. And I judge their take infinitely superior to yours.


Best
TV

Tgirl4real: It is midnight, I know we started a bit late, but it's time to round off so that the judges can get to work.

Thank you all for your time, commitment and contribution towards today's debate.

The debate is officially ending now.

Results will be announced tomorrow morning.

Anyone with questions can still drop it for the contestants. They will answer whenever they can.

Thank you all for coming.

Wait 0! Efemena has responded to my response. Either it gets struck or I get to do likewise?

Good night.

Wait 0! Efemena has responded to my response. Either it gets struck or I get to do likewise?

Efemena_xy: Hello TV01 - thank you for your response. Below are my responses to the points you've raised.

Please correct the positioning of your quotations for clarity.

Thanks
TV

Sisi_Kill: @ TV01


Would you please expatiate on this?

Sure.

Men and women form a recombinant whole. Regards sex for purpose i.e. procreation, bar deformity, disease or accident, male + female = children. If there is anything wrong, you should disclose it, leaving your potential spouse to make a fully informed decision (+ fertility tests can be taken if you want to be absolutely sure. Personally I loved her enough to face whatever).

Regards sex for pleasure, coming together with a person whose character you know, one who you have grown to care for deeply and are committed to in a mutually committed exclusive relationship means you will have good sex. Great sex you'll have to work at. The good news is that functionally it's like hurdling, practise means improvement. Dynamically, remember the type of person I cautioned them to be with?

Clear?

Best
TV

debosky: A few questions Contestant 1
Why do you consider sex to be excluded from the process of appreciation? Furthermore, can it not be argued that sustained contact with an individual will also result in a binding effect?

You don't need to have sexual intercourse with someone to ascertain if they possess the requisite character, a shared understanding of the marital union and like aspirations or worldview.

In fact, sex can becloud judgement and initiates bonding prior to a real due diligence being completed. It is pre-emptive.

debosky: Would it? Or would it effectively render players irrelevant? If there is nothing to 'play' for - i.e. it is available without restriction, then why would players play as it were?

And if it is available without restriction, why marry, what value would a conjugal relationship actually have? Sex is already freely available, it doesn't stop players playing.

debosky: Furthermore, you allude that being 'used' can occur in courtship if there is sex - couldn't one be equally used for companionship, sounding board, etc. during courtship? If so, why not simply identify a mate with no contact and marry immediately to avoid anyone feeling used?

Yes, but there is no real bonding or deep connection if it is companionship only. Not even a financial loss is as painful or hard to recover from. And some do marry successfully as you described.

debosky: As question above - why not keep all the other aspects of marriage pure? Is only sex worthy of keeping pure? Do non-sexual past liaisons not also result in delayed-manifestation issues?

Rarely if there is no sexual bonding. There'd be no need for ingesting harmful chemicals - contraceptives, abortifacients - painful and potentially risky surgery - abortions - risk of STD's or unplanned pregnancies. A little sadness perhaps, but no real harm. I lived it. None of the disappointments I suffered took a real toll. Sex pertains to the soul and I abstained. I would find it hard to look them (or their spouses) in the eye if I had. I believe it was likewise for the women involved.

Best
TV

Tgirl4real: Contestant 4

The topic [i]Sex before Marriage: Right or wrong [/i]is one which I would be arguing for and therefore deem as Right.

Irrespective of who or what we are, where we come from, what we believe in or not, sex should be a very private and special moment between us and our chosen partner. It is an act that should be practised only between two [b]consenting adults. I am placing special emphasis on these two words because anything other than consenting sex constitutes rape or child sex abuse. The word ‘adults’ is also used here, because of the emotional and physical risks associated with sex.

Presumably 18 is adult, and two 18 year olds can consent? So a consenting 18 year old with a denied pregnancy is not raped or abused according to your submission. So there is no problem then is there? Or perhaps it's down to those who preach abstinence? Please give context to this live example on the basis of your submission.

Tgirl4real: Before addressing the question on whether it is right or not for two consenting adults intending to tie the knot to engage in sex before marriage, let us first acknowledge the fact that such ‘intending’ couples have already made an unofficial agreement to commit to each other for life. It becomes official when the necessary documents have been signed on paper and a marriage certificate issued. Marriage is a life-long commitment and not another form of dating. Thus the key word here is commitment. Does it not therefore stand to reason that before undertaking such a lifelong journey with your partner, one should ensure that some groundwork be carried out to ensure compatibility? Especially as this will mean spending the next fifty, sixty, seventy or even eighty years of your life dedicated solely to that person? Based on that premises alone, I earnestly advocate for sex before marriage between intending couples, for the following reasons listed below:

If sex prior to marriage is to test compatibility, but you have already made "the commitment", what happens if there is no compatibility? This is plainly contradictory? So no, it does not stand to reason, as you are clearly saying non-compatibility voids the commitment. Please defend this point.

Tgirl4real: Sexual Compatibility

No Nasty Surprises

Intimacy and Bonding

Chemistry

Sexual Identity

Health Benefits:

• Improved sense of smell [3]
• Stress and blood pressure reduction [4] [5]
• Increased immunity [6]
• Decreased risk of prostate cancer [7] [8] [9]
• Orgasms leading to increased levels of the ‘love hormone’ or Oxytocin, which helps couples bond and trust [10] [11] [12]
• Sexual intercourse and associated activities are aspects of many mood repair strategies, which means they can be used to help dissipate feelings of sadness and depression [13]
• Helps you look 4 – 7 years younger and these benefits are directly related to the benefits of sex – stress reduction, greater contentment and improved sleep – all prompted by sex. [14] [15]

Knowing these, then delay reaping these benefits till after marriage? Why wait?

1. Sexual compatibility - I have responded to this in my question above.

2. No Nasty Surprises - honesty will circumvent this. Pre-marital sex will not reveal a bigamist, undisclosed health problems, children out of wedlock etc.

3. Intimacy and Bonding, Chemistry, Sexual Identity, Health Benefits - All these are benefits of "sex" regardless of the context. This is an argument for sex - regardless.

Tgirl4real: Conclusion: Sexual morality is not about how long you wait. It is about how you treat people and the people you are with. Instead of deceiving ourselves into thinking that waiting until marriage makes sex ‘good’, we should focus on how to be, and demonstrate ethical and responsible sexual practices, which include taking the necessary precautions to protect the physical and mental well being of ourselves and our partner. Having sex that is consensual, and focused on mutual pleasure, are part of being an ethical and responsible human being.

Thank You.

Sexual morality is understanding what sex is and enjoying it in it's proper context,Marriage. This means it is safe secure, pleasurable and with wonderful outcomes. No one says sex can't be "good" out of marriage, but understood for it's ultimate purpose it is best within it. Responsible, ethical sex, is sex within marriage. Their are heightened dangers and risks with every other sort.


So just the two questions then. I see nothing else pertinent.

Best
TV

Efemena_xy: Hello, I'm Contestant No. 4 and my questions are directed to Contestant No. 1:

We know that religious stricture and cultural tradition have mostly been in close agreement on this. Especially with reference to the faiths and traditional morés that prevail in the African context. Sex before marriage vows is “haram”, intercourse before marital rites is taboo.
A case based on a sound religious exegesis and a deep knowledge of our cultural heritage is practically open and shut against sex before marriage. And whilst I acknowledge that it informs my personal position and submit it as supporting evidence, I will not make it the mainstay of my argument. Not least because it is self-evident and would not really lend new insight or progress the wider discussion on this issue.
As societies move away from religious instruction and long held cultural norms, towards an era of autonomous self expression, with personal desires and preference informing choices, are there any other reasons for abstaining from sex before marriage if one simply desires it?
I believe there are sensible and practical reasons for doing so.

Question 1: Based on the excerpt of your first paragraph for which its basis leans heavily on cultural and religious norms of the past, or better still – of a bygone era - how do you reconcile your opinion of sex before marriage for those who do not share your religious beliefs in today’s modern society but are still active, tax-paying, members of society? I’m particularly interested in those who do not yet have marriage as a viable option open to them – such as the GLBTs (Gays, Lesbians, Bi-sexuals and Transexuals). Are they exempted from pre-martial sex because they can’t get married?

Firstly, to refer to religious and cultural norms as of a "bygone era" as a point of rebuttal is patently wrong. Practising adherents of the Abrahamic faiths alone number in their billions. Religious faith is very much with us and has every right to inform public opinion

Secondly, neither religious conviction nor traditional cultural norms were the mainstay of my submission, as I clearly stated.

Thirdly, marriage as defined has always been thus and is open to everyone. And it was never about the sort of intimacy you choose to have but the natural outcome of natural intimacy, children. Marriage arose anthropologically as sociey' answer to raising future generations. A biological reality;men + women = children, fulfilling a societal need - a well raised future generation - at least cost and to optimal effect, raised by their biological mother and father.

Fourthly. Any two opposite sex couples - bar a few disqualifiers, age consanguinity etc - are able to marry. people who practise sodomy are not barred. Two people of the same s3x cannot have a conjugal relationship. It does not and can never result in children, whilst in principle male/female s3x can. Indeed true s3x involves the coming together of two opposite s3x Instruments. What homosexuals do is not s3x. It's a perversion of the real thing. So no matter how much tax they pay they can never truly have s3x, be conjugal or be truly married, whatever the legal position. So if they choose to marry it applies to them, if they choose to be sodomites it's a moot point.

Efemena_xy: The essence of courtship is too really appreciate the person one is potentially going to spend the rest of one’ life with. Sex has a binding effect and engaging in it prior to marriage is pre-emptive in that regard. Potentially beclouding one’ judgement to character flaws that should spell the end or at least mean serious consideration is given to continuing the relationship.

Question 2: If you claim that the essence of courtship is to really appreciate your spouse / person you intend to tie the knot with, how can you really know for sure whether you are sexually compatible or not? Granted, sex is not the be-all-and-end-all of a relationship, but it is an important aspect of marriage, that shouldn’t be left to chance – and if your partner has got sexual issues that aren’t discovered until after the wedding night, such as pre-mature ejaculation, inability to climax, what then? Would you spend the rest of your married life frustrated, unfulfilled with no other choice but to fake org@sms?

Whatever you believe; creation, evolution or nothing at all, men and women are compatible sexually. It's a myth to to think sexual compatibility needs to be pre-determined. If people take one thing from my participation in this exercise, let it be this. "You have great sex with a great person" guaranteed. If a person is physically unable to consumate marriage or disqualified through disability they should not be presenting themselves for marriage. Anything else is a question of preference and will be resolved in two great people seeking and working to mutually satisfy each other. DOn't be with someone you don't care for deeply, commit to love and are sure has been wholly open and truthful with you.

Efemena_xy: Abstaining would serve to keep the conjugal aspect of marriage pure and obviate many issues that arise from past liaisons, including those that can manifest much later. Think heightened risk of serious illnesses like infertility and cancer as a result of contraception to avoid unplanned pregnancies, having abortions or using abortifacients. Indeed, is it not with us already? Eighteen with a denied pregnancy anyone?

Question 3: Do you not think that having a conservative attitude to sex where it’s seen as some dark, nasty act not to be mentioned by ‘chaste’ people, is the root of many of societies sexual ills? You’ve given the example of an eighteen year old with a denied pregnancy. Yet, this same eighteen year old confessed that she had to sneak out of her parents’ home for over a year just to see her boyfriend. She had relationship issues which required the input of a loving, understanding and experienced adult (her mother, for starters), but she obviously didn’t feel comfortable enough to discuss her concerns with her mother.

This is all too typical of issues faced by teenagers and when the fail to get that parental support and guidance, they turn to strangers on the net and peers who know no better and the end result – yes, an unwanted pregnancy. When purity peddlers create a false black and white world of ‘pure virgins’ who wait till until marriage and whorish girls who go home every night of the week with a different man, they fail to address the reality of life, a fact that people WILL still get involved in relationships, despite the ‘taboo’ status linked to them. How we deal with these relationships shape how we as individuals grow and evolve about ourselves. You get to figure out the difference between real love and puppy love / infatuation, which this young teen was unable to discern. Her plight is resounding proof that sexual repression has never worked. EVER.

I never called it dirty, or said it should not be thoroughly discussed. Societies "sexual ills" stem from wholesale moral loosening wanton permissiveness and the commercialisation - hence degradation - of s3x.

She did not have to sneak out or engage in illicit s3x. She chose to do so. A full understanding of the possible consequences and a clear notion of why she should abstain till the right time would have served her well. Abstinence did not cause her situation. It would have prevented it.

Preaching sex within the security of marriage does not mean issues cannot be addressed and understanding imparted. One of the reasons why it's a good thing, is it stops the immature getting in over their heads which is the case in point.

Best
TV

Efemena_xy: Hello, I'm Contestant No. 4 and my questions are directed to Contestant No. 1:

Evening Efemena,

I'm Contestant No.1. I shall respond to your rebuttal straight away, then post my own shortly after. I'm juggling a few unexpected things so kindly bear with me.

Thanks
TV

Cheers TG,

Interesting to note that the first four placers all debated the Spare/Spoil notion. First and 4th against 2nd and 3rd for. It looks like this is warming up nicely.


Best
TV

Well done to TG & RR for organising and moderating. And of course to our impartial panel of judges

Some questions for our moderators;

A.
Evidence: This has been cited as a basis - if only in part - for being awarded marks. However, I think we need to consider this carefully. many studies, most especially in the social sciences are often biased and undertaken with an ideologically based outcome in mind. It is often said that social science is not science.

Let me give a couple of examples;

1. Pharmaceutical companies sponsoring studies of drugs they sell. Enough said (and that is actually real science).

2. A study claiming 2 same gender parents raise children as well or better than two opposite sex parents. We are all "NetWise". A search for numerous studies for or against that notion will return in about 0.001 seconds. I don't believe quoting or lifting points from a web search is a debating skill.

Rather the skill is in articulating why one is for or against a point/position. Marshalling an argument and appealing to ones audience with experience, sound analysis and cogent points.

B.
Rules - an example here is the word limit; what is the sanction for transgression? Outright disqualification? A points penalty? Individual judges discretion or nothing. Like corporal punishment , it should always be clear what will be considered an infraction and what the subsequent punishment will be.

Thanks
TV

hrmkz: We alread had 3, two girls and a boy.

She thinks we need one more but am ok with 3.

We have discussed and discussed but she is not giving in.

How else can I convince her?

Bro, many would love to be in your shoes, myself included.
She does you don't, what to do?

Be the leader you are. Is your wife physically capable? Any previous health issues that could make child-bearing risky? Can you have another child without anything more than marginal discomfort? Especially financially. Will you be able to provide for all 4 children and the both of you adequately without overburdening yourselves?

If you have positive answers for all of the above, please indulge your wife. Consider the new life a blessing. Your wife will be overjoyed, your kids happy, God honored and your tents enlarged. If not, speak lovingly with your spouse.

Enjoy the passion if you accept the mission.

Best to you and your family

TV

Evening,

Do I make my submission direct to you and will it be "marked" anonymously? Or do I declare my choice here, with my submission posted for the judges to grade and for all to read?

Apologies if you've stated it clearly and I've just failed to pick that up.

Best
TV

Career (dreams) and Family are not weighed after one weds.

When one correctly understands marriage, one appreciates that the moment one marries, one agrees to subsume their career (or other aspirations) for the greater good of the marriage if required.

It's not a choice one makes after marriage, it's a decision taken when you agree to marry.

Yes, it's all very well to say balance the two or find someone that will be supportive. And indeed, that may well work out. But if the situation demands it, it's not a choice.

I speak as a Christian.

TV

_{I'd love to hear a woman articulate these "dreams/visions", not just trumpet them generically. I'd also like to hear, why family would have to be "de-prioritised" in favour of pursuing said dream. As much as I'd love it, I don't rally expect it. Unthinking positions and paper thin arguments.}

No!

It can be culturally and ideologically embedded, but it is not genetically predetermined.

A renewed mind in Christ will sort it pronto - this one no reach spirit level sef!

TV

...I've started so I'll finish.

Definitive, if you are a truly faithful to God, please believe your "situation" is not like that of others.

If I had met my wife a year earlier, I may well have missed it. I had lot's of notions I needed to be disabused of, prejudices I needed to let go of, as well as insights I needed to glean and wisdom I needed to acquire. The timing has to be right, the person has to ready, you just have to be righteous.

God is working with you to this end. Just be patient and trusting. Prayerful, watchful and humble. I could never have seen the end from the beginning, but when God finished His work, it all became clear. Those who do not believe as you do have to engineer their own ends. And it's not that this approach cannot pay some dividends, but who will be your guarantor, who will stand surety? Please be careful from whom you solicit and take advice.

He is the God of all comfort and all consolation. I have passed through so I can share with you. Not that I'm a Catholic or any other denomination, but I am, and speak to you as one, who over and above labels truly believes. If so, you do not need to hear anymore or say anymore. Not just Guarantor, not only Surety, but also Justifier.

I have spoken. Off to swing some kettles jor...

TV

Royal Roy: Hmmmmm

nice one TV01

Been a while we saw you around here!

Hope you bubbling with all the good and besties of life?

Thank you sir. Wifey and I have been putting the 10'000's to flight. God is good. I heard about your exploits. I pray that it is not only men that have cause to give a good testimony of you. Your reward is assured.

yellowpawpaw: TV01, where hv u been?
I've been missing u and ur posts!
Welcome back!

I haven't actually been anywhere. I think the occasional hiatus, followed by a brief "reading only" return, before re-joining fully helps one keep things in perspective.

And thank you. I trust all is well with you and yours. Appreciate your keeping me in mind.

Best
TV

Bro' Definitive,

Good to hear that you have a keen sense of what you’d like and what is essential for marriage. That is lacking in many these days, hence the "car crash" type unions that abound these days. Please proceed, there is nothing to allege against you on account of this (or carry go, nothin’ do you - appreciating your preference for impeccable grammar!).

A friend once introduced me to a lady. “What’s the deal” I asked? During our discussion it came out that “she wants a really tall man”. Why should I bother I queried? Well “when she meets you and discovers your sterling character, she’ll see sense. “Let’s just leave it” I said. “At all” insisted my friend, I’m sure it will be fine. Wearied from accusations of being too fussy, overly picky and not giving people a chance etc. I acquiesced.

After a brief phone intro and a few convos, we fixed a date. As agreed & bang on time, TV rocks up to her place. Beautifully attired in a tailored blue-grey suit with a fine birds-eye pattern. Matched with a crisp tailored white shirt and gigolo loafers. Shaved and trimmed Needless to say, all this was lost on the sister, whose eyes were fixed at a point some way above my head as she opened the door. She had a wide smile to begin, but as she gradually lowered her gaze, her smile faltered then totally disappeared, until finally, by the time our eyes met, she had a facial look of just having trod on dog mess.

This all happened in an instant, but was unmissable. I held form – even as I thought “what is it with me, rocks and hard places”?

What’s my point? Peoples preferences no matter how silly, childish or immature are to be respected. They have every right. Even if with hindsight they turn out to be misguided and regrettable. And as they have every right, they must also bear responsibility for their choices.

I feel you have done well and taken the right approach. Set your standards high and stick with them. Otherwise there is a real danger of you never being really content, resentful or even worse. And in this regard, faith as a priority is right up there. If you do for any reason compromise on any aspect, be sure to think it through and accept you can live with the outcome. Please, don’t let your eventual union fall in to the bucket of “manage-manage” or “tick-box” affair. Be wise.

One good thing about the “date” was she lived close by. That was particularly good as when I turned up for date number two – lest I be accused of not giving people a chance, I arranged a second date even though I didn’t particularly feel her – she claimed not to remember making it? And good because some while later I saw her up close with a guy at our local train station. He was shorter, stockier, not as pleasant looking – and needless to say - not as well attired as I am. Good as the woman God finally blessed me with is taller, more shapely, better looking, more accomplished, beautifully mannered and with a character to die for. And she frequently saw us together before we upped sticks to a better area.

So I repeat, do not compromise. Pay no heed to those, who don't have it, can't see it, won't get it or would fail to recognise it, even if it sang love x love to them at a candle lit dinner for two at the Ritz (in Ibadan I think you call that Premier hotel ).

Continue to believe and trust God. By all means, allow room for introspection, consider your own ways. Work on yourself and continue to absorb the “essence” of holy matrimony. But I re-emphasise, please do not compromise.

Be encouraged sir. At 30 you are still relatively young and there is all to play for. Please be patient - it will all be worth it in the end - and considered. God never fails. Blissful uxory will be yours.

TV

_{I love catching them at the "wanna wed" stage}

Guitarlife: I understand sir, I try my best but its tough. Thats not an excuse, I really dont have any.
@Op am sorry if my posts sounded insensitive and a bit sarcastic. I didnt mean to, you are trying hard already. Just be more prayerful and probably pick interest in learning a new musical instrument. It worked for me at sometime when I was dealing with stuffs too.

It is well my brother. It's hard out there and I don't envy anyone in your position right now. But regroup refocus and fixate on Him. As a man, take responsibility in your relationships - or simply don't have them - and please do not hurt the young sister, any others or yourself.

Instrument? I believe OP's desire is to make sweet music with her husband.

TV

chaircover: Is that all you will say

I have been looking forward to reading what you and analytical have to say on the issue. I was even thinking of bringing analytical out of sabbatical leave.

Please drop some advise for the lady from a mans point of view.

Sex very often has too be "smoothed" by a couple. There is rarely an exact match in appetites, preferences or desires. Compounded by the various phases and life events a couple will encounter. You test tire beforehand - that is not in any way prescriptive - you are perfectly matched at that point and then life kicks in! Say a traumatic pregnancy, difficult birth and PND? Leaving wifey with absolutely no sexual appetite. Then what? Providing and protecting a wife and children combined with work stress and bad dietary/exercise habits can wreak havoc with a mans libido. Sickness sef. Then what?.

Sure, sex can be discussed, but what is more important is the deep care and sacrificial posture you adopt towards your spouse. With that you'll go the extra mile to please them. Pleasing them -pleasing each other - will be your sole aim in sex. Listen to me; you'll have great sex with a great person. Don't potentially harm two people by acquiring for yourself a "manageable" or "tick box" spouse.

Sex is a bio mechanical exercise, it can be worked on. There are more than one road to market se? Explore together. A couple should be comfortable enough to say and caring enough to make an effort.

I still perceive foundational issues here. If they were right for each other, the will too work through this would be there. The problem is not so much the sex, in the first instance at least.


TV

Guitarlife - I may not have the right to be, but I am really disappointed with you right now. You sound like an unrepentant fornicator and you are taking one who did not even hint at adultery - merely mentioned it - too task?

Beyond that, I had real hopes for you. You are one of four guys I'm so rooting for. Spiritually you could do yourself great harm and this will at least be a great setback. As you can see, the two you've been with are no indication of the one you will ultimately settle with. Testing is not required. You are better than this. Do not blight your future.

jidegirl12: TV did you or did not go for marriage counselling before you tie the knot with Mama JR??

Be objective for once please.

No, l did not. Otherwise l would not have asked?

I'd really appreciate thoughts here. And answers to my questions as posed would be great.

Thanks

TV

yellowpawpaw: Men dey suffer o!

Ujujoan: Nigerian women dey suffer sha . . .

We'll get there

TV

greatgod2012: @op, what are his reasons for cheating?

Are there any valid reasons for cheating?

TV

@OP,

Are you absolutely sure your fiancé is the man you want to spend the rest of your life with?
Do you know without a doubt that he is committed to you and any children you may have?
Is he a mature man who has shown you he understands marriage & has communicated - to & with you - a vision for your future together?

If you answer yes to all of the above, it's just per- wedding nerves.
If not, you might want to revisit those things and maybe consider a further postponement, until such time...

@Kuylie, applause.

@All, there seems to be a trend to suggest per-marital counselling. That hasn't been a feature of the family board previously. At least not with the groundswell l currently see. I'm not knocking it, but would appreciate if someone could detail what it is about pmc that makes such a difference? What does it or is it designed to accomplish?

TV

taryour: Oga o. Some women can be so silly and heartless. Those family she is spending on,when issues arise you see them removing themselves one after the other. Op hope you have gotten another job? If yes please find a means of getting her out of that shop,lock it up and let her have access to getting in there,what rubbish If the means of getting money to spend is being cut she will regain her senses. Or simply covert the shop to another avenue of raising money for yourself and your kids.

A woman that doesn't take her hubby and kids as her number one priority is not a wife. Shebi na the boutique and the money from it that's making her feel like a champion. Cut her wings and let's see her fly.

...following on from my post above, I see the point here, but I don't agree. Like I mentioned, they are essentially in a combat situation (conflict) and that type of action would be seen as aggressive.

What typically happens is one party "escalates", the other retaliates and so on until we have all out war. This usually has only one outcome, as well as being costly for all involved.

He needs to sue for peace, but in a way that does not prove escalatory and at the same time deals with the more fundamental issues. Attempting to "deal" with his wife will almost certainly backfire as she in turn moves to show him who is doing the dealing. From what it sounds, she is in a position of strength and has a family who will willingly ride shotgun for her. Lets not give OP cause for part II here.

TV

bellong: The bolded is the sole essence of communication in this situation. As he expresses his grievances, the wife does the same and they find a balance/compromise in resolving the issues to move forward.

Clearly there are more fundamental issues which require resolution in this case. At the point of inception there were what I describe as "not ready/not right" issues that were not resolved. This has led to some dysfunction becoming entrenched in their home.

Even if as OP claims, it is purely one-sided, the root issues need to be addressed first. To expatiate, if for example the issue was alcoholism, a discussion around "you need to cut down/quit drinking" would not really help. The root causes need to be addressed and the alcoholic must not be in denial about the addiction.

There is live conflict here, so they are effectively in a combat situation. It doesn't appear that either of them have the character/skills to resolve it - having festered for 8 odd years - and only one some semblance of willingness. I "some semblance", because OP' desire is to "straighten out his wife", I'm not sure he gets his own failings. Hence my suggestion of a mediator. But both parties have to be willing.

This is not a question of a committed and mature couple with a simple misunderstanding easily resolved by a heart to heart.

TV

OP, based on what you've shared and more generally, I actually think you have valid concerns.

Don't get me wrong, doubtlessly being an only child and the centre of your parents world for 19? yours has made you at least a little brattish, if not imbued you with a monster sense of entitlement. However the timing and shaping of this move does raise some questions.

I wouldn't have normally felt comfortable touching on this, but since you have, I will. Your parents age - and therefore ability - to cope with a child and possibly not being around to raise him to maturity, leaves you with a sense of impending burden as next of kin.

At your age, you should be looking ahead to enjoying your young adulthood and then starting a family of your own. And further, your parents should be focusing on readying you for that phase of your life. What is the motive behind the timing of this? Given the life phases they and you are currently in.

If it's too keep you company or have a larger family, this should have happened when you were much younger, especially if the child is of a different ethnicity.

However, I wouldn't fear the doomsday scenario of your parents passing in your sophomore year and you playing daddy daycare in between lectures and frat parties. The obvious best all round solution here would be for the child to be further adopted by another couple.

Someone mentioned your orientation? If that is the issue, it would make a bit more sense. Perhaps they only just realised? And possibly makes it even more ominous

I have some questions - although purely rhetorical on my part;

How old is the adopted child to be
Is this story actually true
Were you yourself adopted (hence my question mark after "19" earlier)
Is this really adoption or fostering
What am I doing on this thread !

And some tongue in cheek musing - not advise.

- At their current age, the authorities would hardly look favourably on their application to adopt? Especially given the ethnic difference. I'm assuming this is not some celeb type procurement from abroad?

- You could threaten to kill yourself if they go through with it, and do so if they do. Drastic I know, but it would simplify things somewhat.

- Ahitophelian counsel would work here, but if you are smart enough you can figure that out for yourself.

On balance I doubt this story, but it was fun musing over it.


TV