₦airaland Forum

Onlytruth, it seem you did not understand the reason i said the Nigerian Constitution cannot be changed, except dictatorially. Yes in theory it is changeable, but in reality it is virtually an impossibility.

Now each session of the national assembly is 4 yrs, and a bill cannot be carried over from one session to the other, so all the shenanigans we are seeing from the national assembly now will end in may 27 2011, and the next session will start the whole process again. Not before each member recuperate some or all of their investments (election expenses), which can take up to one year after inauguration. Also 6 months to the expiration of the session, most members would be more interested in re-election and any Law making.  And we have not even begin to talk about the 35 state assemblies required for a constitutional amendment. So you see the approximate 2 and a half years left would never be enough to amend the constitution, even if there are no internal petty bickering.

Another pointer to that effect is that i[b]n the over two and a half years of this current session, not one bill had been passed by the 500 member national assembly except the yearly rituals of appropriation bills and supplementary appropriation bills.  [/b], and you expect them to be able to amend the constitution?.

All the public hearings, panels and committee investigations has only one benefit - SITTING ALLOWANCE, TRAVELING ALLOWANCE AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE.

citizenY:
'Edoyad, onlytruth and wirinet.

This is where you are derailing.

i will recap if you cannot read between the lines and follow logic.

A senate committee is conducting hearings in the six political zones of Nigeria.
Each zone is making proposals for constitutional ammendments.
All presentations will be harmonised and presented for debate as recommended by the committee.
Some of these proposals may not even pass the committee stage.
These proposals will go through the legislative process and if my/your reps approve them what will you do?

For the guy Wirinet, I refer you to my comments on Orkars coup speech

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=354162.msg4955842#msg4955842

My dear Onlytruth, whether sharia is politically motivated or not is subject to definition and implementation is
confined to certain locations that are completely outside your zone and in any case it does not have general
application in the northern zones. SOme have said that it is used as a political tool but certainly it will not be
of any relevance in other parts of Nigeria. On this score, the quasi federal system will only that and restrict
it to the areas that want it.

On rigging and manipulation of elections, we know the specialists who outbid themselves and always end up
without a candidate. We know those who sponsor and instal a whole legislature and kidnap governors and they are not in the north
The federal system of government allows each state latitude to decide how it allocates its
resources and over the years we have seen how they have been used either for the community or for the
rulers. Being a federation, all federating are bound by statutes (Constitution).

Do not be deceived, it has been said , times without number, that our elite from all divides have a common interest
and once they agree, we are left in the cold, regardless of where you come from.Instead of finding a solution to this,
you guys have this penchant of using the same divisive methods used by our mutual oppressors to get to the top
and engage us in endless debates, rehashing the same fare, day in day out., nothing new.

To be very honest with you guys, it is depressing to engage in this type of dialogue , all in the negative direction,
dispelling long engraved prejudices and mindsets and phobia/ conspiracy theories. As I said in other places, this
is a platform for all players. You can decide to send your first eleven, your junior team or your veterans team or
even a combination of all. Do you blame anyone for your wrong choice of team and strategy? What happens if your
striker or defender scores an own goal? It is the fault of the opposing team, abi?

CitizenY,

I am not in the mood for long arguments today and so i will make it brief. For the North- West to even demand to the aforementioned issues in this thread is very annoying. How can they bring about a proposal to make the sharia superior to the Nigerian constitution, and how are we to begin to negotiate such a proposal? Then they want to us to share resources based on cooked up population figures. So that bamboo go de work and mokey go de chop( and i am not just talking about oil). Take the example of alcohol and VAT. They want to share VAT on Alcohol and other production goods based on dubious population without thinking what they can add to the kitty.

You make me laugh when you go on and on about public hearings and national assembly and state assembly changing the constitution. Let me make a categorical statement; The Nigerian constitution cannot be changed by the National assemblies (especially this current dispensation), except it is done dictatorially like OBJ wanted to do. Ordinary FOI bill has been in the National Assembly (without passing through the state assemblies) for close to ten years. So you are now telling me that any section of the constitution will be changed in the next one and a half years remaining in this administration. The only Law this national assembly knows how to pass is appropriation laws, and even in that they are always late.

As you said discussing these issues gets one depressed.

@ Supreme commander SEUN,

I am surprised by your lack of principles and i am appalled by your lack of leadership acumen. How can you keep changing your stance like the bulb of a pendulum used for a science experiment.

A good leader stands by his decisions based on his principles, you like a typical Nigerian populace is utterly principleless. No organization can be run that way.

I feel sorry for your subordinates (moderators) like kosovo, who tries to defends your swinging back and forth on the winner of the ellections. One minute Kosovo sensing you will uphold the election is shouting " Becomerich is winner and that is final" and in another mins he has to somersault by saying " becomerich is banned, and that is final" only to flip again.

A good leader has to be strong do what he beliefs is right and not be swayed just because of public sentiments. I am telling you this because you might hold executive position one day.

Yes given than you guys did not do your homework before asking for nominations and votes, you could have manage the resultant crisis better.

I think the Hausa elites want to have their cake, share it and also eat it.

They want to share other peoples natural resources on the basis of dubiouss populations figures and disproportionate state structure, then they want want to use this fund to fund religious structures hostile to others, especially the owners of this oil and then drive the remaining outsiders away by instigating religious crises from time to time.

This also reminds me of an incidence that happened at Ife in the late 80s when Benson Idahosa came for a crusade on campus. After all the preaching about the blessings that is given to a cheerful giver, he asked everybody to put their hands into their pockets and purses, and bring out all the money they can lay their hands on, for a special blessing. He now told them to raise the money to the heavens, then he started blessing the money. After the blessings he told them not to lower their hands and then instructed the ushers to go around with the offering box. Everybody was told to drop the monies in their hands into the offering box, that the money now belongs to God, and that the money will be replenished by God, 1000 times over. That day, many students that came from town had to walk home.

noetic15:
@ OP

If I were u, I would not be bothered. peoples opinion does not define you. . . .it only expresses what they see. . .their view might also be beclouded. my point is dont take people\'s opinion too seriously. . . if u enjoy your posts. . . .nothing should stop u from making them.

Do not mind Noetic, although other's people's opinion should not define who we are, we cannot live outside of societal acceptability. it is natural to care about what other think about us. That is why people who are in the public eye pay public relation offices so much money. A bad reputation or a wrong perception can have serious consequences on all facets of our lives like our home, offices and even Nairaland (ask Becomerich). Like the saying goes; if you want to hang a dog, give it a bad name.

Now back to the topic at hand. Yes i think your posts are sometimes too long, you should realize that most people have very short attention span. You can hardly keep their attention for more than 5 mins at a time.

I think you are a matured, pleasant, intellectual but overly religious person.

The problem of incompetence plaguing the Nigerian Nation is playing out even here on Naira land. How one earth was becomerich, becommrich or becomrrich able to get security clearance in the first place. This is an ex-convict(locked up by admin many times), a tribalist  who advocates that yoruba land break away  from Nigeria ( if that happens then Naira land would break up into Nairaland and CFAland), and breaks the very constitution of Nairaland. And yet Nairaland's INEC gave him clearance. Now we have a constitutional crises on our hands as becomerich has been fairly voted  as the Nairalands political contributor of the year and was later disqualified. Reminds one of june 12.

aletheia:
@wirinet:I know the meaning of the name Jesus, far better than you. However my question still remains;
How did you get from
"Jesus is said to be the Greek form of Joshua or Jeshua, which means to deliver or to save. . . So the name at birth could have been Joshua."
to;
"So the real name of the person referred to as the Jesus Christos (the anointed saviour)is unknown."
It's a simple question. Kindly shed more light on your logic.

Christianity is a rational faith based on historical evidence of its claims. Where you and I differ is that you reject whatever evidence is placed before you. The evidence may be summarized as
1. Eye witness accounts
2. Documentary evidence
3. Other corroborating evidence

You should have presented you arguments without asking "where did you get that from?", It is as if the definitions i presented is flawed. You may disagree with my conclusions, but you should not fault my definition of the terms.

What evidence have you placed before me;

You said Eye Witness Accounts; Where are the eyewitnesses or you do not know what an eye witness means.

Then you said Documentary Evidence, I guess you mean the Bible. I disagree that the Bible presented its stories in a documentation manner. They are just a collection of many different stories from unknown writers in an unknown time frame. A documentation is something like a ships captain's log it is usually concise and precise.

Then you talk about collaborating evidence; that is what this thread is about, so far we have not found any collaborating evidence to support biblical stories. You can bring you own sources that collaborate biblical stories, it will be appreciated.

Jaybee2412:
Political machinations. Another attempt to deceive Nigerians that UMYA is still in control and given presidential orders. How are we sure that this order was not from Turai. Turai will soon be sending soldiers on missions if we are not careful

That is exactly what i wanted to say, which Yara dua gave the orders and how, where and when was the order given. Did the IGP speak to Umaru through video conferencing or he took an over night trip to Saudi Arabia.

Most likely, it was Turai that gave the orders.

tensor777:
Lets be clear. A Polygamous man by the very fact that he chooses to marry more than one wife has already sent out the signal that he is sexually promiscuous.
So it makes little sense for some posters here to try and distinguish between sexual promiscuity and polygamy. Polygamy is a direct consequence of it.
Furthermore there is no evidence that such a polygamous man changes his behaviour because he has a specified number of 'wives'

The point of a law against polygamy is that for the first time in Subsaharan Africa there would be a painful consequence for the unrepentant womanizer. Right now it is open season for such a man which explains the spread of AIDS.

My friend you are yet to educate us with your definition of polygamy and how it is the same with sexual promiscuity.
What of a man who marries a woman and divorces her one year latter to marry another one, is that also monogamy, polygamy or promiscuity. What of a man who never marries but keeps changing partners?

You have harped so much about "painful" consequences for polygamists without elaborating what this painful consequences should entail. Are you going to deprive all the wives and children ( and probably his parents, brothers and even families of the wives), of a polygamist the support of their breadwinner just because he is a polygamist. If that should happen today, can you weight the consequences to the society at large.
This is African and not Europe where you have some degree of social security for women and children.

Tell me which African woman would rather her husband go to jail for sleeping with another woman, she and her children (and probably family members also) would suffer much more as a result). Even the children would not forgive their mother for that.

chosen04:
Bature said he has already started making arrangements with officials of NEMA to organize public enlightenment on how people will respond to such situations and the use of fire fighting equipments. He said despite the loud and scary noise from the bomb blast, people were seen rushing towards the blast rather than running away from it. He said in the actual case of a bomb attack from a terrorists group, many bombs could be planted at different locations thereby making it risky for onlookers to hang around.

. It is a blessing that there was no canal nearby, or we would have been in a state of mourning by now. They should not try such a drill in Lagos o! with all the canals nearby.

Krayola:
Christianity was a relatively TINY sect. They were a big enough "nuisance" to warrant a mention, but the only people that really gave a s.hit about Christians at that point was the Jewish religious leaders in their struggle over what the future of Judaism would be after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. They fled Jerusalem and migrated North towards Syria, which already had a christian community made up of mostly diaspora Jews, some gentiles, and Jesus's followers who wanted to the future of Judaism to be around Jesus, but Rabbinic Judaism wasn't having any of it. (The gospel of Matthew is believed to have been written in this area around this time, and it is this tension between the Jerusalem Pharisees and the Christian community that is reflected in Matthew's anti-pharisaic portrayal of Jesus, and harsh judgments, prediction of the temple being destroyed, bla bla bla. in the gospel of Matthew. Mark's isn't half as harsh)

The christian community had no political allies, and no power whatsoever at this point. This was ROMAN EMPIRE. They were just  small sect of "weird" people that believed "weird" stuff. No one significant really gave a poo

Thanks Krayola, that was a plausible explanation. It is nice getting one or two new insights into the origins of Christianity from illuminated Christians, instead of the dogmatic approach by most.

I still do not think the passage was written by Josephus himself.

aletheia:
@wirinet:
How did you get from;to;Illogical.

Have you done any research on your professed faith or you just swallow what you are fed bu men of God- hook line and sinker. So you mean to tell me you do not know the meaning of Jesus, and you call yourself a Christian.

Pastor AIO:
I do not see how it breaks the flow.  It makes perfect sense.  He is giving an account of the origin of the christians which came about around the same time as all those other 'sad calamities putting the Jews in disorder'.
The story of Paulina was a sad calamity, the story of Jesus and the origin of christianity was a sad calamity.  The setting up of effigies in jerusalem was a sad calamity, all occurring at around the same time.

Pastor, i usually admire you insightful views and analysis f issues but i fell you are wrong here.

Yes the passage concerning the reference to Jesus does in fact break the flow of the story, it way talking about Jewish calamities that put the Jews into disorder. The Jesus story does fit the bill of an event that caused a major jewish disorder.

Secondly, it is obvious that the said passage could not have been written by an impartial observer. It shows the personal opinion of a believer (Christian). He acknowledged that he was "the Christ" and he appeared to them again on the third day. Josephus could not have had these beliefs.

Then he was said to have said that " And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day", because Christianity and Christ did not exist together.  It also show the passage was added sometimes after Christianity became established. If Christianity was so established during the time of Josephus he would have made more reference to it in his voluminous works.

Fa. fa. fa. foul!!!

This is a travesty of democracy. When is the election petition tribunal going to be constituted by Seun. Jakumo and and Beaf should rejects this election. They should even go to the high court immediately because there are so many pre-election issues. How can you win against a person with multiple nominations (ID). So who actually won the elections? was it becomeRich, becomerich, becomrich, and so many other configurations, and we have not even start to consider Nigeria1, Nigeria11 and so many other configurations.

Even the post says becomerich wins but it was becomrich that claimed victory.

I hereby support Seun's disqualification of becomerich due to multiple registration

Eziachi:
Why are you whoa! whoa and whoaing?

Maybe this will amuse you more:
I have been an orthopaedic surgeon since 1978 and specialist consultant in bone disease for 25 years. I brought this issue into focus because I met a Nigerian patient this past week that happened to fall into this equation. In addition, this discussion had helped me understand many things.

Why is it such a whoa! For you? Not just I, my son too who is now 36, is also a surgeon at Hammersmith’s Sharing Cross Hospital (Fulham Palace Road) in West London. However, I works privately majority of the times, but I still consult for British N.H.S at King’s College hospital Denmark Hill, near Camberwell in South East London since 1982. Where I still teach postgraduate doctors and still perform orthopaedic surgeries once a week at the same hospital.
In fact, until about 3 years ago, I still treat players of Nigerian's Iwuanyanwu Nationale soccer team of Owerri with serious leg and ligament injuries at a friend’s hospital at Ikenegbu Layout in Owerri until the team was bought over by the state government and I decided that I don’t want any business with any Nigeria governmental body and terminated he contract by mutual consent.
You really make me laugh with your LOL.

I do not doubt that you are a medical practitioner, the problem is that you allow your bias against polygamy to interfere with your professional judgment. You assert that Polygamy is a major cause of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa purely based on personal convictions and a limited experience in Uganda, without any  statistic from credible authorities to back it up.

And as a doctor, i am surprised you equate the contagious nature of AIDS to something like flu or measles. AIDS as we have been told is not very contagious (especially through heterosexual means). You can have a husband carrying the virus for many years while the wife and newly born children would test negative to HIV. Also there are documented cases of love-peddlers sleeping with numerous HIV positive men, without the love-peddler herself coming down with the decease.  We are even told that other extraneous factors such as previously untreated STDs and lacerations to sexual organs increases the risk of contracting the decease from an infected person and that the risks are lower for normal healthy individuals. Also we are told that other factors such as nutrition levels, drug abuse, and unhealthy life styles contribute significantly to susceptibility to the decease instead of heterosexual sex alone.  Then there is the complex issue of the reliability of the tests, especially in the same Sub Saharan Africa. Many times the test is said to appear positive for common illnesses like typhoid and other bacterial and viral deceases. Even simple pregnancy sometimes gives a false result.

If as you infer, that you catch the infection once your manliness touches a woman, then i doubt many people (both monogamist and polygamist) would be free( after 25 yrs of the decease). I should not be arguing with you in your field of specialty but i as i said, you biases are interfering with your professional judgments.  

Please do not misunderstand me, i am not supporting illicit sex because there are other equally terrible Sexually transmittable deceases such as syphilis, hepatitis, etc. I just want to separate the facts from the fiction.

BrutusOne:
Unless women can also marry more than one husband, I will support laws against polygamy. And those making the dumb assertions that woman are more than men in Nigeria have baseless arguments - it seems that way because women are disproportionately represented in education, in the workplace, etc. So, most single women are poor – but marrying as many women is not the solution. That is just another form of oppression!

The country will be nothing until women are afforded the same rights as men – period!

You too are using your heart to think instead of your brain. I have dealt with why it is impractical for a society that practices polyandry to survive, read it.

It is not people making assertions that women are naturally more than men, population census of most countries in the world support that assertion and the reasons are not too far fetched.

I have often said that a person with the name Jesus Christ could not have existed in history. That a person that name Jesus the son of Christ. Because Joseph's surname was not said to be Christ.
Now lets analyse the Name Jesus Christ.
Jesus is said to be the Greek form of Joshua or Jeshua, which means to deliver or to save. Therefore the name Jesus could not be the name given at birth since the parents were not Greek. The name was probably change to Jesus during the writing of the gospels in Greek. So the name at birth could have been Joshua.

Christ is from the Greek word Christos, meaning Messiah or The Anointed one, which is a title just like cardinal. So Jesus could not have been named Christ from birth, but was also added during the writing of the Gospels in Greek to refer to the anointed one.

So the real name of the person referred to as the Jesus Christos (the anointed saviour)is unknown.

tensor777,
How will such a low deal with a man who wants to marry 4 wives with the active support and consent of the women. Or how would you deal with a woman who consents to her husband having mistresses.

Will you jail all of them?

FACE:
The problem here is that some people are refusing to consider multiplier effects and think that sex is the only means of infection.

Eziachi has pointed out several times that there are several ways of being infected with HIV including, sex, use of contaminated equipment, maternal link, etc.

Now in my opinion, a polygamous man is the person with a proven track record of lack of self control when it comes to women and sex but I may be wrong, so I wont use likelihood of promiscuity in my brief analysis.

Back to the multiplier effect I referred to;

If a monogamous man had 10 extramarital sex partners, there is a high chance that at least 11 adults plus any offspring that came post-infection would be infected within his area of operation. i.e 11 people + x children.

Likewise if a polygamous man with 4 wives had 10 extramarital sex partners, at least 14 adults + 4x children (post-infection) would be infected within his area of sexual operation.

Now the above strictly deals with infection through sexual promiscuity.

On the other hand, let us presume that Mr Mono and Mr Poly were very faithful to their partners. Mr Mono and Mr Poly's 4th wife (yeah the brand new one) visited Mr Anyhow the dentist for tooth extraction and both got infected with HIV.

Mr Mono went home and infected Mrs Mono and Little Jack and Jill then came along armed with HIV from birth. Direct infection = 1, Multiplier effect = 2, Total infection = 4

Mrs Poly went home and infected Mr Poly, who cheerfully gave some to Mrs A, Mrs B and Mrs C Poly. The Poly wives jointly brought 8 little ones to the world thereafter. Direct infection = 1, Multiplier effect = 11,
Total infection = 13

Clearly, AIDs would most likely spread fastest within a polygamous setting than a monogamous one.

Your treatise is highly inaccurate and hypothetically flawed. I do not like it when people try to assemble the world using their personal moral standard and prejudices. I am a strict monogamist but i understand my polygamous friends. Some guys testosterone levels is at variance with their disciplinary levels, and such people have to be catered for with minimum damage to the society.

Before some people demonize polygamist, why do you not try to understand the reason some men are naturally not satisfied with one woman. Some men cannot wait the long period of sexual starvation that accompanies the later part of pregnancy and the healing period of child birth which can sometimes span 6 months. Some guys keep mistresses for those "rainy" days, while some patronize red light districts under the cover of the night. Other still take to marrying 2 or 3 wives. We all have different make up and it is dishonest holding other to our personal expectations.

In the example you gave above, it was wrong for you to assume that a man with 4 wives is like likely to have the same number of mistresses as a man with one wife. A polygamist is most likely to have less mistresses than a monogamous one, because, the polygamous man would have his high libido satisfied better than a monogamous man with the same level of libido. Also the polygamous man would be boggle down with much more responsibility as he has to cater to his four wives and children and hence be much less likely to add more responsibility by keeping mistresses.

Some people with phobia for sex (sexiphobia ) better get use to the fact, that you cannot decree everybody to live by your sexual standard. It had never worked in the past and it will never work in the future.

The irony is that the societies with the least sexual restrictions are the ones with the least sexually related vices. Scandinavian countries where prostitution is legal has the lowest AID figures and lowest teenage pregnancy figures in the world.

tensor777:
We are not in a law court so you may just have to take that passage as it stands.

On the other hand the bible has many passages which support monogamy.
Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife
Proverbs 5:18
Let thy fountain be blessed and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.

So how does the passage stand? You take a passage out of context and then complain that we should accept your skewed interpretations because we are not in court.

You are reading too much extra meaning into the passages. The passages did not imply that polygamy is a crime.

Even the proverb 5:18 talked about wife of thy youth, i could interpret that to mean first wife as opposed to wife of your old age which could mean second or third wife. So it is a matter of interpretation. I know a church that allows men to marry more than one wife because (as the put it), the bible did not specifically forbid polygamy.

Are you sure that this great revelation of yours is not a 419 or Yahoo-Yahoo scam? Because here you are advertising a paperback book for $16 (2,400 Naira), you did not provide how many pages or the name of the author of the book. maybe you wrote the book yourself, because i do not see your motivation for promoting the book.

You provided the editor as one Olisaemeka A.G. but then put the author as The Guild Of Researchers International. Who are they?
You talk about testimonies. Nigeria is awash with testimonies of people raising from death and all sorts, so the testimonies in the book is nothing new.

The funniest one is the scientific reports of scientists and astronauts who discovered the existence of hell, heaven and angels. Please give us links to these scientific journals. We had always thought hell was below, so we now know that hell is above, beside heaven.

tensor777:
Deuteronomy 17:15
Neither shall he multiply wives to himself that his heart turn not away.

Is that the best verse you can come up with banning polygamy?

Lets analyze the verses surrounding that verse to see if it applies to polygamy;

15Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

18And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

So you the passage was not specifically banning polygamy, but was referring to a new king whom God shall choose for the people. The passage is just saying that the new king is not to be distracted with the acquisition of wealth and women. It did not even say how many wives he should start with, it only says he should not multiply the wives and gold as is the standard practice with kings of Israel.

So search for another passage banning polygamy specifically.

tensor777:
^^You are going off on a tangent there. The question is would you share your wife with another man yes or no? It is not about the long -term consequences of polyandry.

Frankly I see the link between sexual promiscuity and polygamy. They are two sides of the same coin. Whether you accept it or not man was not created by God to live like that hence it should be no surprise that one of the consequences of such a lifestyle choice of is AIDS and other STDs

No i am not going of the tangent, I will not share my wife with another man, and i catch her with another man, i will drive to her and her properties to her parents house to demand a refund of my dowry.

Thou shall not marry two wives was not one of the ten commandments of God, and in fact most of the old testament prophets had multiple wives and the God of the old testament did not make a big deal out of it.

I do not even think that that the Bible exclusively bans polygamy, what is abhors is Fornication and adultery.

Eziachi:
Its either you don't know what the word obsession means or you are just trying to be funny, this is a lively debate about an issue and you don't have to get your knickers in a twist. My observation in Uganda is based on fact and reality, which is what science is all about. What do you based yours on?

You cannot compare the attitutde to sex in the Arab land to that of Nigeria. In most Arab lands having an affair (women)will even warrant being stoned to death. And polygamy in Arab land is not as prevalent as you may wish to think as it is common among their elite. Another fact because I have worked with many middle eastern doctors for more than 30 years. Even their younger generation, no longer subscribed to it as their parents did.

But since you are such a campaigner for polygamy, WILL SHARE YOUR WIFE WITH ANOTHER MAN? If the answer is no, then your are a hypocrite.

I know exactly what obsession means and i am not trying to be funny. You are getting overly emotional over the issue. I think a combination of personal religious convictions and probably an unpleasant  experience with polygamy had inflamed your hatred for the word, so much so that you ascribe so many unrelated issues to polygamy.

Now i cannot understand the crux of your arguments, are you against polygamy by itself, or you are against illicit sex. Please clarify.  Because it is illicit sex that is said to be the main cause of the spread of AIDS and not Polygamy as you want us to believe.

The Arab example you sited is not tenable, the Arab men are not less promiscuous than Nigerian and even Ugandan men, it just that their society accommodates multiple sexual partner for those that are so inclined within their Laws and cultures.  Also Arab societies regulate female promiscuity by ensuring women marry at an early age, sometimes forcefully and not our unrealistic situation where you expect a woman nearing 30 to retain her virginity.  

So your argument here reinforces  the fact that Laws cannot dictate how many sexual partners a man would have. Because a law that mandate Polygamy does not mean people would marry multiple wives and vice-versa.  

On the question of whether i will share my wife with another man, that question is irrelevant You know it is practical impossibility for a woman to be married to two husbands at the same time. Such society would disintegrate rapidly. Because in our species and most animal species, the male is the dominant sex, men are stronger, much more aggressive and domineering, so it would be impossible for women to dominate a" harem" of men.

How would such a marriage work? would the woman build a house and invite men to marry her and then take turns at the bedroom? or she would like with one husband for a few weeks or a few months and move to the next husband. In such a situation, who would own the children? except the woman bears the children and cater for them herself without a father.

With the current situation women are still looking for better protection for themselves and their children and you want to leave them defenseless.

The implication of a divorce is far worse for the woman (especially an old one with many children) than for the man. A good example is Mandela who married immediately after the  divorce while Winnie is yet to marry.

Eziachi:
There is nothing complex about sex, it becomes complex for only the beneficiaries of its exploiters and then make a mess of it. Take your time before jumping into marrriage and try marry the love of your life and for the right reasons and try to invisage how she will look like in 40 years time and if it is ok with you,marry her and stay with her. I can assure you, its not as complex as you think. it will be if you make. You don't need lots of women to enjoy a sexual life, in fact the more the women, sex become a chore, rather than making love.
You don't have to listen to me, just a banter!!

How can you say that there is nothing complex about sex. Sex is a vital part of our lives. Even psychologists would tell you that a average man thinks about sex more than 80% of the time and most of our actions have something to do with sex. I am surprised you are talking like a teenager who have just read the latest edition of Mills and Boons. I have been married for over 5 years and i would tell your treatise above is fantasy. Ask any married man or woman.  Predicting what your marriage will look like in 40 years is like predicting the rate of Naira to the dollar in 40 years time.

tensor777:
Hatred for the institution of polygamy is no bad thing. In any case in subsaharan Africa a chronic womanizer is more likely to revert to polygamy than a man who is more disciplined.
Furthermore there is no evidence that having more 'wives' makes such a person to desist from carousing with harlots.

Hatred for the institution of polygamy is a bad thing, because it should not be your concern how many wives your neighbour decides to marry.

You said it, a chronic womanizer is likely to practice polygamy whether legal or illegal, and a man who is "discipline" would not marry more than one wife, even if polygamy is allowed.

There is a lot of evidence that most red light districts are patronized my Bible believing monogamists.

Eziachi:

Polygamy is a form of having multiple indiscriminate sex to your wives by one man who will likely return home with the disease and spread it among the innocent wives. So the larger the number of wives he had, the higher the number of direct infection rate. If he had one wife, that means one direct infection. That is just common sense, it doesn't mean that polygamy is the direct cause of HIV but [b]one of the[/b]causes of it wide/fast spread within an area.

Assuming a man that has 5 wives and each of his wives had six children each and he infected them with the disease and they all die, you are looking at 30 orphans directly and immediatly within one confined environment, couple with high poverty level. If he has one wife and she died as a result of being infected by him, you are looking at just 6 orphans. Six orphans in life has a better chance of survival than 30 from one single family. COMMON SENSE!!

That is exactly what happened in Uganda, where it is custom and common in most rural areas for every man to have at least three wives. And there is a community, I visited with some British colleagues in 2001 in a fact finding mission for UNESCO, what remained in so many villages are thousands of little children left with their very aged grandparents, because their parents are all dead from HIV.  In some cases, the kids are looking after themselves because they are the only ones left. And almost 40 percent of the kid are already infected from birth.

That experience will live with me,the rest of my life. Uganda government had to do something and they did because they recognised this fact of life, though people will not like to accept it, but it's a simple logic, but unfortunately it seems that many Nigerians like BECOMRICH are still leaving in denial about the rate of HIV infection as we speak in Nigeria. IT'S A TIME BOMB. And Polygamy is just one of  other reason for fast infection within a confined area.

You have an obsession against polygamy that has nothing to do with the health alarm you are raising. Who (which is an authority on the spread and prevention of AIDS had never claimed Polygamy is responsible for AIDS. They say having multiple partners increases the risk of contracting the decease, and a monogamist in today's world usually have more multiple partners than a polygamist.
Your observation in Uganda cannot be used to conclude that polygamous societies have a higher prevalence rate than monogamous societies, because the largely polygamous Arab nations has some of the lowest prevalence rate in the world.

Please temper your hatred for polygamists before you start bombing them.

frankkky:
i see some peeps are advising girls to have babies for men so that they can have the men stay,honestly at this age and time am highly amused that a lot of women(especially black women)belive that having a child for a man automatically holds him to you,look let me tell you if u like u have 100 kids for a man who doesnt love you he will still not love you,let s stop bringing iinocent children into the world just hold a mans attention when he doesnt have it for you,love for a woman from a man is not based on children(when are our sisters goint to ever realise this TRUTH)
It always sadden me when i see otherwise intelligent women do this,dont ever belive that lie for one day

My friend, i disagree with your views on this. You see, women and children are the vulnerable groups in our society, so we need to protect them better. If a man has a vibrating di.ck and wants to explore the great depths, then he should be held accountable for the outcomes. I think it is unfair to blame women who are zooming past their prime and are desperately searching for a husband, and then you will find gigolos promising heaven and earth including marriage, just to be able to lay them. That is why i said that there must be relevant laws to protect the kids( even if they are hundred) because it was not the kids fault that the man has itchy di.ck, so the child should not be made to suffer with the woman.

If men are made responsible for all the kids they bring to the world (even if it requires a DNA test), their di.cks would be a bit more responsible.

adconline:

If you the article of the thread again, you will find out where I am getting my facts from. Even Uganda too have joined, no wonder they have recorded the lowest number of infection for the past 10 years in East African. HIV nearly wiped Uganda out by the turn of the late 80s.  I think best on the little I see among just Nigerian immigrants in the U.K alone, Nigerian HIV infection rate scenario is a dynamite waiting to explode

We have been hearing scary AIDS statistics for over ten years now. In fact year in year out the same predictions come out. Once, El-Rufai said 1 in 4 pregnant women in the FCT tested positive for HIV, even my doctor friends in Lagos says that many pregnant women tests positive for HIV ( HIV test is compulsory for pregnant women). But the problems is our general death rate is not significantly higher than what it was pre 1986 when HIV was said to have enter Nigeria.

In fact when we were told that Fela died of aid, we were all scared that Lagos is in trouble with Fela's 27 wives and numerous other mistresses. But surprisingly we have not seen AIDS figures rise significantly (maybe they all relocated to Benue). So i need some explanations.

dernearla:
@ Poster, the situation is absurd here in Nigeria. Anyway i don't support Polygamy cos it is an illiterate idea.

Then do you support monogamy only, but with 1 or 2 mistresses or no marriage, just living together and bearing children then breaking up and finding another live in lover (this is a more literate idea).

I am not supporting or condemning polygamy, what i am saying is that no law can prevent men from having multiple partners. So we have to find ways of protecting everybody's interest, especially the children.

First and foremost, there is already a law against Polygamy - It is illegal. Even at the marriage registry, the marriage councilor would remind you. The problem is in enforcement of the Law.

Like my friend says here;

brooknam99:
Man by nature can neva be satisfied with one partner,so let's not pretend

Although i would rephrase it to; " Man can never have sex with one woman during his life time"

Man by natural instinct is a polygamous animals, and would find various means of going round laws that would restrict his sexual freedom.

Even in advanced countries where the Bigamy laws are more effective, men still find ingenious ways of having multiple partners.

Instead of banning polygamy, i think that relevant laws should be made to protect the first wife, children of the first wife, other children of the other women (whether married or not). Because our Laws as presently constituted is very amorphous, and  is exploited by lawyers, sometimes to the detriment of the first wife and children.

There are many cases where women are better protected by allowing the men, marry another wife, at least they would retain the rights of "Iwayo Agba" (senior wife) like Moji Dopesi. But society forces the man to divorce his first wife before he can marry his new "Sweet Peperempe" (young girl), and the first wife and her children always suffer neglect. (Ask Oluremi OBJ). I even have a cousin in a similar situation, the man was forced to divorce his first wife in order to marry her, and they went through a bitter divorce spanning 4 years.

What most people fail to accept is that sexuality and sex is a very complex issue, because sex is in the genes and the hormones and not controlled by the brain. Whole a man see a good ass and gets a hard-on, it is only a satisfaction of that urge or the power of the holy ghost that can bring it down again.  No threat of AIDs, hell fire or law can do it.

I thought the haliburton case spans 3 countries and most of the court cases were in the US, since Haliburton is a US company. Maybe it the case is stalled in Nigeria because is impossible also to translate American english, with all those gonna, gonna, meen, nigga, etc and the difficulty in translating Labor, color, soccer, etc.

It is also difficult translating the court papers from Germany with all the vagner, heinz, etc.