₦airaland Forum

biolabee: very good example.... so the man won the argument

Lets assume it goes on like that for two years... what next

how does that gel with your equality beliefs

Say you have to resign due to high costs of childcare as it occurs in the West or you DO NOT want a househelp

How is this feminism compatible with your religion that says there shall be a head in marriage

Biolabee, you could be more insightful.

The "man" did not win the argument. His position was better - in fact hers was unworkable.

A true example here would be if both positions seemed of equal merit, who gets to make the call. Who submits? who exercises authority?

I'll give you an example; I once dated a girl and pointedly asked her "will you follow my lead". Her response was "if you make sense". You can see that was a "no" right? Red Carded instanta !


TV

bukatyne: Oga Tv,

In summary, what is your post about?

I'm following Aluta' lead here. Case rested - especially based on your penultimate post.

TV

_{*I edited my last post slightly. but it still reads essentially the same*}

bukatyne: I am a Christian first and it should reflect in my outlook to life.

Can one be a "Christian first" and then something that is contrary to Christianity second? That makes you neither fish nor fowl. Please think about that.

Indeed, your writing betrays the fact that you adopt procrustean means to make your Christianity fit your feminism.

You never actually answered Aluta' question on what equality meant. Further you are unable to decouple "equality" and "submission". Evidenced by your last quote below and a clear pointer of your supposed faith warring - and perhaps losing - to your ideology

bukatyne: The fact I am equal to a man does not mean I should be rude or maltreat him. Before doing anything to someone, I try to put myself in the shoes of that person. Infact, knowing that we are equal has helped me a lot. I know that this person feels pain the way I do, would appreciate things like I would etc. Before, I do things to/for my fiancée, I try to imagine 'if it were the other way round, would he do this? handle the situation like this? etc.' and I try to emulate where I am lacking. I am not a person to counter one's views because they are not from me.

What is it that warrants rudeness however you define equality?

bukatyne: If he brings an idea/suggestion and I have no differing opinion, the decision flies. If I do, we table it and discuss the pros and cons of each suggestion and pick the best for us. It might be his, it might be mine.

And here is the rub. Submission is not in view here is it? What's the tie-braker. Any power of veto by the male head?

bukatyne: Submission as defined in the Bible has never ran counter to equality. It's submission as defined by man (African since Aluta feels that the African male understands submission differently). Do you know that all Christians are expected to submit to one another? Does it mean that all Christians are not equal?

Again you hit a brick wall trying to reconcile two disparate concepts, one of which you have been unable to define, the other that is anathema to your feminist ideolgy.

And finally you conclude. You are equal (whatever equality means). All Christians submit to one another, ergo you submit to no one. I won't ask you to expound on that particular scripture in context, as I fear you'd read it through your ideological lens

I am not sure what faith or ideology Aluta subscribes to, but imho she is certainly closer to the Christian truth here, and rightly rested her case. I'll wait to see if I should do likewise.

TV

Lord_Reed: To reiterate if you are saying "marriage was designed for believers" I agree in totality but if you are saying "Marriage Is Meant For Believers Only" then I believe you are denying the very evidence before you.

I'm not even sure I can agree the "designed for believers claim"

At best it's a standoff. One can argue that only believers existed when it was instituted, therefore it was designed for believers. But equally, one can argue that it's designed for mankind. Or even that belief was not in view, a condition or a prerequisite, and therefore does not come into play.

God saw man as lonely and needing a suitable helpmeet. It had narry to do with belief, holiness or righteousness, or salvation.

Although God given, it's an earthly institution to meet a human need. It's why there will be no marriage in heaven.

Marriage was designed for mankind imho. But I stand to be corrected if it can be shown otherwise.


Best
TV

Ihedinobi: My brother, I've given my argument in exhaustive detail already. I did as you requested and gave a brief summary. I am not arguing whether or not unbelievers can have blissful/blessed unions. I've maintained that the relationship was designed for Christians and I've given a clear reason why I think so. The following is the scriptural layout of my argument:

I grasp what you "maintain", I'm just not sure I get it? I simply see marriage as something bestowed by God creationally. To bless mankind without distinction. It's as summarised below right?

Ihedinobi: 1. Marriage was designed for man

2. Man is that which is in the Image of God

3. Adam's children are not in that Image, they're damaged

4. Christ is the Image of the Invisible God

5. Christians are those in the Image of the Invisible God

6. Marriage was designed for Christians.

So as marriage was given to man prior to the fall, it is only for those that have been restored to that state?

I believe in end-to-end doctrine. This means not just the spirituality or theory, but also the practical outworking.

Would it be fair to say then that any marriage between two "restored" Christians cannot fail or be barren. Or conversely, if a marriage fails or is barren it cannot therefore be between two Christian? What if it contains just one believer? The bible even talks about one believing spouse sanctifying the other and making their seed holy.

I honestly don't get it. And can think of a number of questions that make this view jar with other parts of the scriptural narrative.

Ihedinobi: TV, I'm confident that you know the Scriptures involved. I'm unable to produce them now because I'm a bit rushed. I will offer them later for the benefit of other readers without as much scholarship as you, sir.

I've joined the discussion late, but I would appreciate the outline and inferences clearly detailed. In your own time of course. Appreciate how busy we all are. Indeed,I may not know the scriptures, have the same take on them or indeed been blessed with the same revelation. But I'm all ears.

Best
TV

Mavrick2012: Gooday folks,please i need your candid advice.
on sunday evening,while i was playing football with my two yrs old son in the sitting room,i overheard my wife making a call at the other end of our sitting room.About three minutes after the call i asked her who was on the line,she looked slightly ruffled, "uncle Amos",she said.I expected her to explain further,but she said nothing more,so i demanded who uncle amos is,she only said "you wouldnt know him".since i observed she wasnt ready to talk,i told her i was going to sleep.
The following morning she told me "uncle Amos" teaches in her sister's school,her elder sister has a school in keffi,we reside in kaduna.
The most shoking aspect of the whole drama was when i suggested she delete the number and stop all form of communications,mywife told me she doesnt like the idea,except if i want her to lie to me.she said she can guaranty its just platonic.
I try explaining but she remained adamant.folks,pleas what should i do?I detest divorce and infidelity.

I'll be candid with you Mavrick 2012.

Firstly, whilst there is nothing wrong coming to nl for opinion, please be careful whose opinion you listen too. Further, do not feel compelled to respond to those who willfully or ignorantly misread you. I hear you on your hatred of divorce and infidelity. There are some here who see nothing wrong with divorce and others with agendas other than harmonious homes, which is possibly a reflection of their own situations.

The one good thing about these half-baked, blowsy or unconsidered responses, is that you'll soon learn whom to ignore.

So to your post proper;

With marriage comes a sacrificing of some privacy for both partners. And it's important that both have sight of who the other is interacting with - if it's anything other than day to day business - even if this is only in passing. Moreso the agreement you had with you wife regards opposite sex friends is something that should imho be taken as read in marriage. OSF should be the exception and should certainly be known to the spouse.

You have done nothing wrong in querying your wife. You have every right and further, if it makes you uncomfortable or causes you to query it, your wife - or yourself if positions are reversed - should take steps to reassure you.

Some are suggesting you meet this Amos person. What for? For what? If he's platonic there is no need, if the relationship is illicit, either he'll refuse to show or something will be staged to throw you off the scent.

Your business is firstly with your wife. I don't know of the dynamic in your home or the past histories of either yourself or your wife, but please sit her down at an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner and discuss this with her.

Some of the things you wrote made me wonder about your wife, but she is your wife, so I'll trust you be measured in your approach.

Remind her of both your vows and commitment to your union, and further your role and desire to keep her and your home secure. Let her know why you find this disturbing and your expectations of her.

I won't say more than this for now unless you have anything further to add. You sound mature and humble. Accusations of rigidity aside, men need to be somewhat sober.

I wish you peace in your home. Please seek God if you fear Him.

TV

biolabee: So it was just a case of a randy girl flouting public decency laws in the middle east of all places

Hahaha

#NotSurprised

...it was always likely to be so. Not that that would hinder our resident "sensible shoe lesbos, idiopathic misandrists, rabid feminazis and purveyors of licentiousness from coming out in full force and venting until blue in the face...And with narry a half point between them...

Shior

TV

Kneel.
Kneel to God in prayer and repentance.
Kneel to your husband (your head) in humility and forgiveness.
Keep kneeling until your husband says otherwise. And when he does, retain the kneeling posture in your heart.

TV

Ihedinobi: I am, my dear brother, by His tender mercies. I hope you are too.

Pardon me, but I still do not get your objection. Is there something false in what I said? Or are there closer meanings for the concepts I mentioned than the ones I offered?

About your question, we are saying nothing of the sort. The issue is for whom marriage is meant. In fact, in the next portion of my post which you addressed below, I made clear that even though marriage is meant for Christians alone, non-Christians are allowed to share in it, in a manner of speaking.

I don't understand.

If what you are postulating is that only believers can truly fulfill Gods purpose for marriage, then I won't quibble. And that is not to say I would totally agree, but I could better understand that view. That does not mean that marriage is not "meant for all mankind", or that unbelievers cannot have blissful/blessed unions.

I guess the "objection" is that "Marriage" scripturally prescribed as good for man(kind) and instituted as male/female. Any other slant is an assertion. There is no where it states that is is predicated on belief or a requirement for salvation.

I just need to see a succinct scripturally based outline.


TV

m.k.o2005:
Concerning marriage bein made for mankind,i asked again,what was the original intention for God making man in his own image and likeness ? May be to be disobedient and become God's enemy !

I don't think any one is making this claim.

m.k.o2005:
Concerning believers having certain mores to follow,wouldn't it hav been perfect if all were believers so we just follow and not to have certain mores to follow ?

This point doesn't buttress your claim, as one day we will all be, but guess what? marriage will no longer be, having been done away with.

m.k.o2005:
All perfect gift come from God and marriage is not an exception !God intended for man kind to be perfect and received one of the perfect gifts(marriage)from HIM. BUT WHAT HAPPENED ? Did God withdrew the gift of marriage from HIS creation ? NO! Because HE knows there will be a plan B to bring mankind back into HIS embrace !

Gods concept and institution of marriage remains perfect - I argue that fact day in and day out here - it's men and women that fall short. And as above, with full restoration, marriage will become a moot point.

m.k.o2005:
When you say there were no believers at that time,i began to wonder who Adam/Eve were while in the garden before the deception of the devil(serpent)Don't you know that there was an instruction regarding do's and dont's ? They were keeping off the fruits of those trees becos God gave an instruction and THEY OBEYED-making them BELIEVERS. When the serpent came,deceived them,they ate from that tree,thereby DISOBEYING GOD-making the UNBELIEVERS ! So why are you saying that there were no believers then ? Do you think God placed curses on them for OBEYING HIM ? NO,it was because of their DISOBEDIENCE.The relationship with God was immediately severed ! Belief was in view hence the blessing of the marriage union !

Please re-read, I said no such thing. And made the point that as marriage was given before unbelief became an issue, why force the point that marriage is not meant for unbelievers.

m.k.o2005:
Concerning what sin -disobedience did to marriage,it brought curses(hard labour in child bearing & hard labour in surviving ! Just to mention a few) into the marriage BUT left the initial blessings of God(fruitfulness,subdue and the rest)in the marraige.

I humbly disagree. Sin did not affect marriage, it affected mankind and their ability to correctly apprehend it. Marriage remained the perfect gift - as you stated - bestowed by God.

m.k.o2005:
I repeat,i am not saying that unbelievers should not marry,neither am i saying that [b]GOD SAID [/b]they shouldn't,all i'm saying is that the original plan of God for marriage was for mankind who were made to be in the image & likeness of God to be OBEDIENT(believers)of their maker,GOD !

How about God did not have a plan for marriage, he had a plan for mankind. Marriage was something given to mankind. You appear to elevate what was made for man over man. The gift over whom it was given too.

m.k.o2005:
God help us

Amen

Best
TV

Ihedinobi: Hi TV It's wonderful to hear from you again.

How far? I trust you are journeying well.

Ihedinobi: Briefly, God meant marriage for man. The proper definition of man is that which is in the Image of God. The only One Whom we know is that Image is the Man Jesus Christ. And Christians are all men and women who are in Him. Thus, marriage is meant for Christians alone.

This still sounds somewhat forced, kind of assertive imho. It begs an endless number of questions. Especially in real life. Please think about this. Further, are we saying that any scripture which makes reference to a "wife" - not specific people i.e. Rachael wife of Jacob - is only speaking to believers?

Ihedinobi: However, His rain falls on the just and the unjust. He will acknowledge (perhaps not the best word to use) alliances made by unbelievers and make of them the same demand that He makes of alliances between believers: a holy seed. That which fails to meet the demand will be uprooted and thrown into the fire as a lie.

Same here. So many questions; what demands, how can unbelievers match believers, let alone grasp and meet the demands of God.

I'd like something clearly underpinning this claim.

Best
TV

m.k.o2005:
Thank You for believing in the word of God (bible) ! Since Adam and Eve were the first to get married and from the bible we saw clearly how God orchestrated the union(marriage)Did HE (GOD)allow the union(marriage) for perverts,unbelievers,satanists,Atheists,demons or for HIS obedient creation(children) ?
This takes us down to the question of who were Adam and Eve ?

The conclusion here is not necessarily a fact. It's at best an opinion unless supported by further evidence.

There were no unbelievers at that point so it's a mere assertion that it was created for believers. What need was there for a distinction of any kind? It's sound like a fallacy to introduce belief/unbelief into the mix? And rather pointless.

(I see parallels - in a wierd way - between the gay claim that marriage discriminates against them, as their love is just as real. It's a fallacy, marriage is based on function, not feeling)

It's evidently more factual to say that God instituted marriage for "Mankind". And of course for believers there are certain imperatives for marriage.

m.k.o2005:
Please see below scripture to show you that i'm not against unbelievers getting married neither i'm i saying that God said unbelievers shouldn't marry but what i am saying going by the title of the thread is that THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF MARRIAGE BY GOD WAS FOR BELIEVERS !
1 Corinthians 7:13''And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.''
From the above,we have seen that a believing partner sanctifies the unbelieving partner.This is the exact reason for approving the foundational mistake of getting married to an unbeliever.May be you got married to him or her before divorce.Pls see this scripture 1 Corinthians 7:14 ''For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
But have you wondered why the bible NEVER supported that believing spouse should divorce ? Pls see the scripture below before we proceed:
1 Corinthians 7:15 ''But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other. But God has called you to live in peace.''
From the above,we can see clearly that God desires the marriage to be for believers not minding that HE also allowed them to get married if they want.Marriage was originally for believers but the mercies and love of God allowed all to be partakers NOW but it wasn't the original plan.
Holy spirit,pls help my brothers here to see this rhema as you made me saw it !

God help us all

This is not conclusive. The fact that God calls for marriage between believers does not logically lead to to the conclusion that it's not meant for unbelievers. What is in view is not marriage, but belief.

m.k.o2005:
The fruitfulness ORIGINALLY was for believers not minding that God allowed it on all after the fall of man !
See below words of Christ
Mathew 5:45
''that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. When God said to Adam and Eve(man) be fruitful ! Was he referring to a sinning or an unbelieving man ? NO,but to HIS like !When things changed as a result of the fall of man did God continue to bless man ? NO,instead he placed the ever first CURSE as against the initial blessing on man !
To the woman Genesis 3:16'' "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Pls consider the highlighted !
And to the man-Genesis 3:17''"Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life.
But what happened there after ?

God help us

Again, not really furthering your assertion. Sin did not void the marriage. The curse was on all mankind wasn't it? Child birth is still risky, women live to please men , it's a mans world and I still work way too hard !

I'm not saying you are wrong, merely you have not really nailed this. I join you in that prayer, but otherwise my position remains; marriage is for mankind and believers have certain morés to follow.

Ihedinobi hi, what sayest thou? I have never really considered this. If you have any insight, please share. Briefly please.

TV

byvan: @Remecy,it has failed many,its has just 50/50 chances of being accurate.

I'm no mathematician, but in what is typically a two horse race i.e. it's either a boy or a girl, isn't a predictor with 50/50 accuracy effectively useless?

Am I being thick here?

TV

haryor1986: Am in a relationship of abt 4 yrs old nw. Am a graduate looking 4 greener pasture. V knwn her parents and she has knwn mine too. Yesterday, she asked me to help her fix sum hardware prob on her phone. So wen I finished I tested it and I saw sum chattin btw her and one guy sendin her pix to dat guy. And dat guy dat mornin sent gd mornin my love to her. I was disturbed and I confronted her she nw told me v I put ring on finger? I don't knw wat to do nw cos am disturbed. Though dis lady stood by me throughout my skul days and my nysc. Ur advice is highly welcum.

Let me speak to you as a man;

You;
A good man should always take responsibility for the direction of a relationship and by his conduct and communication let the woman know exactly where she stands. You may well have considered that you had done that - meeting families etc. - but that is not specific enough, at least for her; her very question reveals that fact.

As one looking for "greener pastures", you should be clear to her what this means in terms of your plans, commitment and time frames towards tying the knot - if that is indeed your intention. 1 year? 2 years? 10 years? TBD? She is then free to stay and work with you or take her leave.

You needn't necessarily have confronted her about the guy and certainly not straight away. There is the likelihood you'll speak out of your "disturbed" state. You would have been better served by picking your moment - not immediately , but not too long after - and asking how she feels about the relationship and where it is heading. Her response would have enabled you to discern her real position.

Her;
If she was trying to send you a message, that was a clumsy and potentially dangerous way to do so. Someone tried that with me once, I red carded her scheming behind - And only 9 weeks after meeting her 0! Can you imagine ! I suppose the best one could say for her is she saw better thing and tried to hasten affairs. Foul!

Per above, a good man knows and says how things are going. A good woman should not wallow in uncertainty, but like I counselled you above, she should "pick her moment" and discuss it directly with you.

"Have you put a ring on her finger?" The answer to that is "no you haven't". The real question is "are you going to?". Especially knowing that she is scheming, deceitful - that relationship could be "live" - or both. Indeed, this bird may have flown already.

I wish you all the best.

TV

Kung-fu Panda....hei yaaaaah!

honey86: and even then that person must be real special to me. pregnancy no be moinmoin not to talk of labour.

...that's when I personally feel comfortable about it. When it's altruistic - except say for incidentals - and preferably by someone related or extremely close.

Ras Pwn: commercializing childbirth and commodifying pregnancy is immoral.

I agree although not everyone will. I'd also switch the commercializing and commodifying in your line above.

lucabrasi: last i heard she s living in a flat in opebi and doing her business

Which suggests it's commercial. That's dangerous ground.

There is already surrogacy of sorts in Nigeria - they are called baby factories. In a corrupt and unregulated society like Nigeria...do I need to complete this sentence?

TV

_{...and will Nigerian men be that amenable if the problem does not lie with them?}

bukatyne: Oh yeah, that is human nature for you. Even if the mother was still staying with them when the father molested them, she would have wished she did better.

Agreed, and that would cast a different light on her actions, but not on his.

TV

bukatyne: The abuse obviously started after she left their father.

And I won't argue that point

bukatyne: I'm afraid that those blaming the woman for the act of the father are actually trying to say that 'a father is not capable and responsible enough to take care of the children he birthed.'

She is not being held responsible for what he did. I stated that quite clearly.
We have seen clearly what this particular man he is capable of.

bukatyne: If the woman was leaving for another man, who was the best person to leave the kids with if not their own real biological father? Does the children not belong to the father anymore? Wouldn't the father claim the children?

So why did she take them to her mother in the first instance? She alleges "battery", so she must have known he was an irresponsible, abusive man. And poor to boot. (note her kids are seeing this as her 'leaving for another man')

The childrens immediate well-being should have been priority. The notion of claiming is somewhat misplaced here,and not really an excuse.

bukatyne: If the mother were to sleep with her son, would we find a way to blame the father?

I'll say this for the last time, she is not to blame for that. For what he did. And it wouldn't change if the positions were reversed either.

bukatyne: Even when women try to defend men saying they are responsible and such behaviours are out of line, some men in a bid to shift the blame to the woman would end up painting themselves as irresponsible, illogical and senseless creatures who can't think for themselves and differentiate between right and wrong.

Be as that may be, let every man (or woman) be judged for their actions and not all men judged for the actions of one. Sweeping generalisations or stereotypes are not required

His crime has no excuse or justification - by men or women. And the mother could have done better. For what it's worth, I'm happy to think that she wishes she had.

TV

bukatyne: I am trying to understand the mother's blame here:

Was the she one that laid the bed for them or did she determine the girl the father should sleep with?

The mother is in no way to blame for the heinous act of the father. That is his evil and his alone.

The facts are clear;
- She was responsible for upkeep (so she had enough money to cater for them)
- She mean't to send them allowance at her mothers
- She was more than capable of looking after these kids.

- She left for another "man"
- There is no mention of her visiting or trying to secure custody for the two years since the man "claimed" them
- She knew her husband was an abuser and spendthrift. Did she send money to them there? How? I'd doubt that.
- At a guess she put her new relationship before her children.

QED, a simple unbiased look at the facts as presented. She could have done better for those kids, therein lies her culpability. It's nothing to do with the crime per se.

Don't let those with agendas to poison relationships between men and women deceive you. She is not being faulted for his actions, but her own.

Twisting the story by alleging she may be living in a cardboard box under a bridge or such nonsense is typical of our own dear "moral crusader". Whilst trotting out the old "men will soon be here to blame her for not fulfilling his sexual needs", is the sorry refrain of the forums leading bull-dyke (ooops sorry, I thought everyone knew!)

Lets be more critical and objective than to allow those with hidden agendas to lead our discussions, whoever they are. And most especially when they are toxic to harmonious relationships between us.

May the lord provide comfort and healing here. It's tragic no matter ones perspective.


TV

Siena: I'm sure the Bible Thumpers will arrive soon, saying "to err is human, to forgive is divine." In other words, this guy should be forgiven. Well, left to me, I would take a shotgun, and blow his ugly, misshapen and incestous head clean off his shoulders.

Disgusting creature.

Firstly, the "Bible Thumpers" will in all likelihood say no such thing, as it's not actually in the Bible. Secondly, if you were the "Christian" you expediently claim to be when it suits you, you'd know that.

Siena, ever the "gallery playing womans wrapper".

TV

Beebash: pls what can she do to save her marriage,thanks.

Appreciate a choice may have to be made, but why should that jeopardise the marriage?

TV

EXY, it would help if you could do a number of things;

1. Read clearly. You posed a question, I answered, you asked for explication, I responded. I made clear in summary what I thought was best and why. I also offered to expand on particular points if requested. This was in my second post after your question. In all posts, I have been very clear that is my view, regardless of how society or individuals act.

2. Don’t confuse your terms. I’ve already taken the time to educate you on the correct application of the terms poly-gamy-gyny-andry. Continuing to do so merely points you out as obtuse – at best.

3. Don’t willfully misread me or ascribe things to me. I never said polygamy is second best across a range of options, it is second best (i.e. in a two horse race) against the ideal option identified in my view, i.e. Monogamy. Likewise for Co-habitation, willful single-parenthood or “SSM” are all second best when individually compared with monogamous marriage.

4. The fact that children can turn out fine in those arrangements does not make them as good or preferable. We owe it to our children to give them the best start possible.

5. Emotional appeals to abandoned babies and the like is not advancing things. Please stop, it’s tiresome.

It would also help not to poison or distract by your frequent descent to derogatory references about Christians. Firstly, it lends nothing to the discussion and only exposes your own inherent bias. Secondly, church going or bible wielding does not necessarily make a Christian. Thirdly, the model proposed is blind to religion, so why the animus? Does it prick?

If I make a case for monogamy as the best and therefore the preferred model - in my view - it’s equally incumbent on you to show this to be incorrect or make an alternative case, you have singularly failed to so. Simply saying any choice is fine and should be accommodated under the rubric “equality” is lazy thinking.

The case for male/ female monogamy;

1. It’s the basic family unit and all that is required to bring a child into the world. It ably satisfies society’ requirement for procreation and nurture, nothing more is required, nothing less is suitable.

2. The child/ren have the benefit of being raised by both biological parents, which in psycholigical and physiological terms has numerous benefits. There is also a greater chance of full knowledge of their heritage which is important.

3. The woman has a co-parent with a vested interest in the wellbeing and future of their offspring. And is more lik
ely to have her relationship needs met.

4. Men are more ready to commit, provide and stay faithful. They are also more focused, productive and - dare I say it – civilised within monogamy

5. Society has less of a cost burden

You are all over the place trying to counter my position (as opposed to actually making one of your own). Recourse to canards, distractionary tactics and emotion are just lazy.

Prime example; Homosexuals being in the closet and paying taxes. So what? I have not stated they should be closeted or they should not have full public participation.

But as for children and society, they are simply not on a par with male/female monogamy. A same-sex relationship offers society nothing and does not need state or societal endorsement. It denies a child at least one biological parent. Same goes for willful single parenthood. Polygamy will simple not be acceptable or meet the needs of vast majority and cannot really produce the right balance.

Prime example; African nations playing catch-up because they do not endorse single-parenting or SSM? They do however typically allow polygamy (if only –gyny) though? Plus, SSM was nowhere in view anywhere barely 2 decades ago, did it halt progress in the West or will introducing it accelerate same in Africa? The normal lazy assumptions here – albeit allied with wailing desperation.

So we come to your real agenda; the liberal permissive position, hanging on the buzzwords equality choice and tolerance. Which really is just to validate your own personal morés. Happy to deconstruct the myths of the liberal agenda, but you simply haven’t progressed the discussion that far. Thus far anyway.

I’ll leave it here as you’ve offered nothing of note, although I would like to hear you make true on your boast of an argument against male/female lifelong, faithful monogamy. If only to see you flounder like a fish on ice once more. And no, I don’t mind what you say or even how you say it, just as long as it’s clearly articulated. Your current ability won’t see you playing on the show courts.

And remember; Google is your friend! http://www.bcft.co.uk/Family%20breakdown%20in%20the%20UK.pdf

TV

Efemena_xy: Society comprises of people from different faiths and walks of life. Not everyone is a Christian, Muslim, Juju worshipper or even religious. Sure you've already acknowledged that, but what I need you to do here is to give me solid examples of what these optimal benefits you mention are, and how they apply to everyone in society, not just your average Christian / Muslim / religious person.

I'm a Christian. I believe the Biblical writ, it serves and I see that in practice. Have I demanded everyone subscribe regardless? Have I demanded that society legislates based on the Christian worldview? Societies legislate as they see fit, people act as their worldviews dictate. I merely stated my view.

I have stated the benefits of that worldview to society as a whole. If you are asking for a model that satisfies every single faith, worldview, philosophy or individual lifestyle you are just being obtuse.

On the other hand if you are trying to justify your own permissiveness by arguing for an anything goes live and let live position, say so and be upfront about it. I would hazard a guess and say that's the whole thrust of your position. We'll see if your postings prove otherwise, but nothing wrong in being honest enough to say so - if that is the case.

Efemena_xy: That's an idealistic view of how you think things should be. The reality is different for many folks out there, some of which is no fault of theirs.

You both confuse and conflate issues.

1.You asked what was best for society, I responded. There will always be exception or outliers to any paradigm. I gave what I believe to give the most bang for societies buck.

2. If people make poor choices, are prone to destructive behaviours, or find themselves bearing the consequences of same, that in no way invalidates what is optimum. I stated before, we should act and plan aspirationally, for what is best. Do we break up regular families to make single parents feel better? Or forcibly exclude one birth parent to validate gay parenting?

3. The presence of outlying lifestyles - even if seemingly successful - does not invalidate the overall premise. In the absence of a "one size fits all" model (unless you can show otherwise), will the wholesale adoption of "any and all" be best for society (and feel free to demonstrate that if you believe so)?

Efemena_xy: Really? How so? How is it different from your average married couple save the piece of paper? You've still got the mum and dad very much in the picture, living with their kids, partaking in their lives, yes?

Please read clearly. I did not say that there will be a consequential difference in any two families that are in all ways the same except for a marriage certificate. I said "generally" co-habiting couples do not endure as long as married ones, hence co-habitation is inferior to marriage.

Efemena_xy: Second best for whom?

The kids? (I think not).

The woman/women? (I doubt it, not when you factor in the emotional roller coaster that comes with it...jealousy, strife, competition, plus the health risks of developing high bp or heart failure from being thrust into such an abhorrent situation)

The man? (Yes of course...it is a man's world after all, isn't it?)

Second best to the preferred/optimum paradigm = Marriage, not second in a hierarchy. There is no hierarchy. I am talking optimally - idealistically as you may term it. A non point, based on an incorrectly inferred position.

And yes, it is a mans world . But regardless of whether that persists, it doesn't mean we cannot adopt norms that are beneficial to all.

Efemena_xy: Now that's where you're wrong. Wrong because your views are extremely myopic and formed from you being brought up in a culture that sees things differently. Are you not aware that just as polygamy sits easy with you, polyandry also sits well with the people for whom this practise forms the core of their culture? Such as those in Nepal. Do you not think they in turn would view the polygamous relationships you rank as second best, to be utterly deplorable by them??

You seem hellbent on proving me wrong, as opposed to making a point, having a discussion or generating suggestions of your own. Feel free to travel the world searching for exceptions, you are not making a case or even proving a point. And even if my worldview emanates from under a rock in Maroko, all you are doing is gainsaying. Surely you are capable of more?

Polygamy = Polygny & Polyandry (multiple wives, multiple husbands). My view endorsed neither. And at least try and get your terms right.

And as previously stated, the fact that various practices persist - even as the norm in those societies where they are - does not make them optimal.

Efemena_xy: Re the bolded part of your sentence, I disagree with you on that for these reasons...the exact same reasons I gave at the start of this thread:

Benefits Of Polyandry:

~ Enhances greater economic power within the home(i.e: multiple breadwinners, single mortgage)

~ The death of a parent is less likely to result in poverty or destitution for the remaining family members

~ Common household tasks spread among more people

~ More personal time available to all members, without depriving children of attention

~ Potentially more enjoyable sex life without the risk of venereal disease

~ Less likelihood of being left for another man [s]because if I fancy a 6th he will just join the gang (joke!)[/s]

To further buttress those points above, here's a real life example of a successful polyandrous relationship here in the west. California to be precise:

‘I’ve got TWO men who love me’: Woman has baby with the lover her boyfriend encouraged her to take (and they were BOTH there at the birth)

Jaiya Ma had been living her boyfriend Jon Hanauer, 49, for six years when he urged her to take a new lover.
Within weeks, Jaiya, 34, fell for a furniture designer Ian Ferguson, 44, at a dance class, and a year later she fell pregnant with his baby.
But Jon supported Jaiya, welcomed Ian into his home, and the two men helped deliver baby Eamon during an 'orgasmic' labour.

Now the three live together in a beautiful home in Topanga, California, raising Eamon, two and a half.
'I am so lucky,' said Jaiya, a sexologist. 'I have two amazing men who really care for me and Eamon. Having three parents around just makes life even better, and everyone talks about how advanced Eamon is.'
Jaiya and Jon met in June 2000, while taking tantric yoga classes in Cinncinati, Ohio, and fell in love in March 2001 during a tantric teacher training course.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070634/Polyamorous-woman-Jaiya-Ma-baby-lover-living-boyfriend.html


And another example of a successful polyandous relationship here in the UK:

Meet the husband, wife and lover living under the SAME roof
3 Mar 2013 00:00
“People might think it’s weird but I love both men and couldn’t choose between them,” says mum-of-two

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/husband-wife-lover-live-together-1740096

So you see, the world exists beyond the polygamous shores of Nigeria.

So the best you can do is ferret out exceptions and assume they should sit alongside, be considered equal too, or trump the rule/ideal?

And try and be consistent - and honest - you listed the cons of multiple wives, but the pro for multiple husbands?

I already said I speak to all societies.

Efemena_xy: Oh, I don't know about that.

Clearly not. However, feel free to refute, rebut or suggest otherwise

Efemena_xy: What I do know is that a child needs to be brought up in a loving home, where it'll grow and nuture, safe in the knowledge that it is WANTED and loved. There have been numerous heartbreaking stories and threads opened here in the family section of girls/women giving birth to kids and dumping them in toilets, refuse heaps, underneath cars, abandoning them in uncompleted buildings, leaving them by the road side or even burying them alive!

An appeal to emotion and a distractionary ruse. What does that have to do with "what is best?" And how does it show monogamy as not preferred? Rather the opposite.

Efemena_xy: So are you gonna tell me that those kids don't deserve better than that? Were they not born of heterosexual parents? If a gay couple with the means to love, nurture, train and offer a much, much better standard and shot in life, wish to adopt these abandoned kids, they should be denied? You're saying the kids would be better off being left in the gutter where they were dumped by their pretentious church going, bible wielding, irresponsible parents? Is that what you're saying?

Like I said, monogamy is more likely to provide that all things being equal. And don't ascribe things to me, that is clearly not what am saying. Quite the opposite. There will always be some that get it wrong, we endeavour to remediate and give those who suffer as a consequence as close to optimum as possible.

Endorsing second best just because some get first best wrong, is shoddy thinking. It presumes 2nd best will never go wrong and it logically means all the other inferior models should also be incorporated.

Efemena_xy: Same point for single parents too.

Same response

Efemena_xy: A subjective statement you've given, open to different forms of interpretation.

Particularly if you want to be willful about it.

Altogether a poorly presented, ill thought out response. It didn't rebut my position, it wasn't focused, it made no real points or a case of your own, and it didn't even speak to the question you yourself posed.


TV

ileobatojo: Please direct your rant at the tennis associations or the players that fought for it. I never said I support the equal pay in this instance. I was only answering the question of who Billie Jean King is and presenting the plain facts. Please focus on what you are reading not on what you are conjuring up in your mind.

Rant? Merely pointing out that at least one of your so called "plain facts" bear no real basis in truth. And whatever your position - be it you festoon your home in support or go on hunger strike in protest - is a moot point. Best of 3 sets is obviously your level.

Cheers big ears (analyse that )

TV

ileobatojo: Billie Jean King is a living tennis legend, multiple tennis grand slam winner, feminist and social activist. She was front and center in the fight for equality of the male and female tennis circuit including equal pay. She was part of the women's lib movement.

How is there equality in the male and female tennis circuit pay? Men play a minimum of 3 sets and up 5. Women never play more than 3 and typically 2.

Both the male and female winners at this years Wimbledon tournament took home £1.6 million. Based on work done, any notion of equal pay is a nonsense. True equality would demand the women worked harder, the men worked less or alternatively the men were paid more.

In the semi's, the eventual womens winner won over two sets in something like 62 minutes - a long lunch. The eventual mens runner-up was on court for over 4 hours and played 5 sets. A proper days work.

More equal outcome than equal pay. And certainly not equal input

TV

Efemena_xy: You still haven't answered my question fully. You gave a partial response.

What makes the monogamous union / marriage more beneficial to society than the other forms of union you listed? On what criteria do you base your judgement and conclusion?

As a Christian, the short answer here is biblical writ, which I believe even non-believers are aware of even if they don't subscribe to it.

But whatever your faith or choice not to subscribe to any, one needs only look at how societies have developed - or how they work in practice - to reach that objective conclusion. Most especially when bearing in mind the optimal benefit to men, women, children and hence society as a whole.

Society has a vested interest in ensuring it's perpetuation and hence raising of the next generation, the simplest way to do this is for men to commit to the mother of the children they jointly produce. This means whilst the state still has to spend on infrastructure (hospitals, schools etc), the welfare bill is reduced.

Co-habitation is not as good for kids, rarely proving as enduring as marriage. Polygamy is second best here as all things being equal there will be less time and resource for the children and women and it does not meet the emotional needs of the women involved as well. Polyandry will never have widespread acceptance by men. Men are more likely to commit and provide when the parenthood of children is not in doubt and the female is monogamous. SSM is nowhere, it's not actually procreative, unitive or coital. They can't actually have s.ex and they can't really be married. Any children are by design denied one of their biological parents. Single parenthood is likewise not optimal. All told children thrive best with their biological parents.

I could go on about the benefits to men and more about those to women, but it could get expansive. But that's a starter for 10. Open to question or challenge.

Criteria, benefits to men, women and children. Most natural and cost effective and least likely to engender societal ills.

TV

bukatyne: Matt 19: 11 - 12; 1 Cor 7

Hi Bukatyne I read this and see nothing that directly correlates to this assertion.

bukatyne: I also want to believe you are not saying that a person cannot be happy without marriage because you know biblically that it's not true.

For what it's worth, I feel your question - especially in this context - should have been more about the place of marriage in society, who marriage is for and/or perhaps the benefits to society and individual fulfillment.

However I look at it the question seems odd? True or not, biblical or not. And only makes any sense in direct response to an assertion of that as a fact?

TV

Efemena_xy: You gave salient, constructive points within your post - until the penultimate paragraph where you let your emotions get the better of you and digressed into a generalization of sorts about the capabilities of women folk in general.

Feel free to - or obliged to defend your corner. It is warranted.The occasional piece that's worthy of attention, but for the most part, fluff. And it wasn't women folk in general, it's typically female posters on the family section of nl - and not all, made that clear.

Efemena_xy: Not very nice TV01. I do understand you may have been miffed by Kulyie's responses to you but don't tar us all with the same brush, will you? That was quite low, even for you.

Kulyie is the last person to miff me. She has a visible enough presence here for me to know exactly what she's like. I believe she's earnest, but misguided - and maybe with possible cause. Overly carried away by what is an unsound and - in our context - unworkable ideology. I've always hoped that in time she'd get it without any lasting damage, but know full well she trips easily. I simply don't expect that much from her.

As far tarring you all, Count all the female posts on this thread and see how many have so much as addressed the topic, let alone added any real value.

Efemena_xy: Anyway, that aside, I am interested in a comment you made:

What in your opinion, is the ideal union that would be most beneficial to the society in whole with regards to marriage? And if you do decide on a particular type of union, kindly explain why the others won't fit and might not be beneficial to society? With regards to??

Finally, when you say society, which society do you have in mind? The Nigerian society or society in general?

My opinion on this is - and has been - consistent through all my postings. And l don't even see the response here as anything but obvious. But I'll answer and maybe someone will surprise me in response. In short;

Faithful, lifelong, monogamous marriage. Co-habitation, Polyandry, SSM or any other form (all things being equal), simply do not deliver the same benefits. And that's any society.

TV

Efemena_xy: Na wa o!

Una still dey thrash out this matter?

You flatter them. They have not actually broached the issue at hand - even in passing.

To wit;

This thread was about Polygamy as espoused by a feminist. I posted to say whatever unions men and women enter into, if structurally flawed or dysfunctionally applied, they would be deleterious to society as a whole.

My point, as ever, in my posting in the family section is to seek the national well-being through strong and flourishing families.

I also made an aside at Kuylie, who from memory had long spouted ill-thought out feminist rhetoric and at points presented as Muslim and Christian (Chrislamic?). I remember a repentance of sorts where I thought she’d given all that up, hence my jokey aside. I’ve never actually responded to Kuylie prior to this discussion.

In the course of this thread Kuylie has;

- Crowed about a serious physic assaulting on a man who presented no danger to her
- Being tart in stating she would “procure” a child. And not because she appreciated the responsibility of raising a
child or preparing a citizen of tomorrow to the best of her abilities in the best setting possible, but just so that
she could show “genetic” material to her parents.
- Relished the fact that she can deny a child his/her basic human rights
- Has espoused surrogacy – with its attendant risks – as a mere convenience
- She has endorsed any type of union, without the slightest pause for thought on the impact on society, let alone any
children involved. Essentially saying, permissiveness (as opposed to informed and responsible choice) is the rule.
- Has rained vitriol – and of the most caustic type – on men generally and me specifically.
- And still found time to disdain African women in general.

And none of the women has picked her upon on any of that. Or indeed, given any searing insight into the topic, sought a different perspective or otherwise deepened the discussion.

Instead, the focus has been on a mis-reading my posts and mis-ascribing things to me, just to justify feminist frothing at the mouth.

Sisi Kill gave an outline of what BJ may mean, concluding that although Kuylie was wrong, it was still my fault as nl men are typically chauvinist. As fine an example of specious judicial activism (or blind feminist herding) as you’ll ever see.

Are you all so insecure, so shallow, so lacking? Any wonder men typically don’t - in fact, can’t - take you seriously. Whilst I acknowledge the occasional coherent piece from women in here, I have little fear of waking up one morning and finding it’s no longer a mans world.

Laughable, in a tragic sort of way.

TV

bukatyne: Others like your family, upbringing etc.

No problem then.

And no offence intended or taken.

I'd still like to see a biblical outline of your assertion if you care to oblige. If only because I never really thought about it like that.

Best
TV

Sisi_Kill: @ Kuylie
While I don't condone TV's condescending "every woman secretly desires a man to sweep her off her feet because deep down she knows she can never be happy"..post, I have to ask what do you find offensive about Billie Jean?

Oh man! Your'not condoning my post just ruined a really good garlic burp. Meanie .

Ah, ah, that's simply not fair. Of course I know it's not every woman, I'm not that naive. I do appreciate that some of you are raging lesbians .

And perhaps I should rethink the Billie Jean tag. I mean, can anyone really envision a worldwide hit about an mgbeke feminist and a turkey baster? Didn't think so.

TV

bukatyne: Hi TV,

I know that Christianity amongst others flavors your posts.

"Others?" Pray tell. I feel like I'm being accused of syncretism ?

bukatyne: I also want to believe you are not saying that a person cannot be happy without marriage because you know biblically that it's not true.

I don't see where I made or argued that point. Or if that was even in view? I addressed Kuylie, based on her posting history - and not just on this thread.

And perhaps you flatter me by assuming "I know". I may not know and perhaps you could show us biblical support for your position.

Best
TV