TV01:

Ok, I'm coming. For now I'll leave you with the following;

1. All things being equal kids thrive better in a traditional two (birth) parent family, with the parents properly modelling their roles.
2. Co-habiting couples are less likely to stay together than married couples
3. Where there is abuse, one of the parents is usually not a birth parent.


Right, I'm back, start here - the benefits kick-in literally from birth;
http://narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html

Others;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9139483/Marriage-is-best-for-raising-children-Government-says.html#
http://www.christianpost.com/news/federal-report-confirms-nuclear-family-best-for-childrens-health-48997/

This does not show me children raised by married parents are better balanced than children raised by co-habiting couples.

Please show me that. Or show me that part in the links you put that does.

Don't show me children raised in broken relationships are more likely to be less balanced.

Show me children raised by married parents are better balanced than children raised by co-habiting couples.

I wait.

stillwater: Sagamite stop being [i]irresponsible [/i]jare, go marry.

More enemies without my best interest at heart are showing up.

Carry go!

ronkebp:

Right!!!! he wants to cook bitterleaf soup as if he knows where to locate the cooker and pot...

Kai! O da mor (You no recognise).

M[b]es[/b]hell[b]e[/b]n chef be us o!

Sagamite:

More enemies without my best interest at heart are showing up.

Carry go!

Lolll, I'm just tired of seeing you on the net fighting and debating. Go marry jare, let her reduce all these gra gra on the net.

Sagamite:

More enemies without my best interest at heart are showing up.

Carry go!



Kai! O da mor (You no recognise).

M[b]es[/b]hell[b]e[/b]n chef be us o!

Hmmm!! pity you...dey run yah mouth anyhow...you go still dobaale (prostrate) for me....na here i go dey!!!!

^^^^ Eti gba tan!!!i will cross my legs with my satelite gele....and dem no born Saga well not to prostrate well!!!

chaircover: Madam Ronke, your attention is needed at your second job, Thank you ma

present Ma.... i am on my way...

Sagamite:

This does not show me children raised by married parents are better balanced than children raised by co-habiting couples.

Please show me that. Or show me that part in the links you put that does.

Don't show me children raised in broken relationships are more likely to be less balanced.

Show me children raised by married parents are better balanced than children raised by co-habiting couples.

I wait.

A simple deduction given that co-habitation is more fragile and does not have all/the full benefits of marriage.

But please read this and note the study cited.

http://upallnight5210..co.uk/2012/04/reader-response-truth-about.html

ronkebp: ^^^^ Eti gba tan!!!i will cross my legs with my satelite gele....and dem no born Saga well not to prostrate well!!!

When I have seen your sister and valuated her assets to see if she is worthy and capable of producing the great collection of mini-Saga rugrats, you can start dreaming of that.

TV01:

A simple deduction given that co-habitation is more fragile and does not have all/the full benefits of marriage.

But please read this and note the study cited.

http://upallnight5210..co.uk/2012/04/reader-response-truth-about.html

Amsorry?

So you can't show that children raised by married parents are better balanced than children raised by co-habiting couples?

You keep on giving me the differing risk kids face of parents breaking up, not kids being damaged by having co-habiting couples.


On the other hand, can you make a simple deduction then that marriage and procreation is an irresponsible act since:

- Half of marriages fail.
- Children raised in broken relationships suffer and are not balanced.
- So marrying to procreate is actually irresponsible since we are responsible (have a duty) for the best upbringing for kids.
- It is even more irresponsible if you do not make the right due diligence to protect this high potential risk of failure and depend of blind faith to ensure a successful marriage.

Surely you would not put your child on a plane with 50% chance of crashing, why create them when you have 50% chance of damaging them?

Sagamite:

When I have seen your sister and valuated her assets to see if she is worthy and capable of producing the great collection of mini-Saga rugrats, you can start dreaming of that.

...You are a confirmed clown....

Sagamite:

Amsorry?

So you can't show that children raised by married parents are better balanced than children raised by co-habiting couples?

Can you make a simple deduction then that marriage and procreation is an irresponsible act then since:

- Half of marriages fail.
- Children raised in broken relationships suffer and are not balanced.
- So marrying to procreate is actually irresponsible then since we are responsible for the best upbringing for kids.
- It is even more irresponsible if you do not make the right due diligence to protect this and depended of faith.

Surely you would not put your child on a plane with 50% chance on crashing, why create them when you have 50% of damaging them.

Co-habition is more fragile and does not manifest all the attendant benefits of marriage. Also
- They are more likely to break up - and earlier
- Recieve less support from the co-habitees families

So to your posers
- per above, more co-habs fail than marriages, ergo children are more likely to suffer from breakups in this arrangement
- nope, single and co-hab fams fare worse. Marriage - in lieu of a copncise rebuttal - is still the best arrangement.
- when you understand what needs to be done, due dilligence, whilst not a formality, need not be a long thing. And I still had great faith.
- We have thrashed this point ad-nauseum. Marriage is not a 50:50 proposition if entered into properly

Sagamite, stop fighting the inevitable.

Ondo girl huh? No gainsaying, they make great wives. And via e-introduction. That may well be a first. So long as we get the job done sha!

Best
TV

TV01:
Co-habition is more fragile and does not manifest all the attendant benefits of marriage. Also
- They are more likely to break up - and earlier
- Recieve less support from the co-habitees families

So to your posers
- per above, more co-habs fail than marriages, ergo children are more likely to suffer from breakups in this arrangement
- nope, single and co-hab fams fare worse. Marriage - in lieu of a copncise rebuttal - is still the best arrangement.
- when you understand what needs to be done, due dilligence, whilst not a formality, need not be a long thing. And I still had great faith.
- We have thrashed this point ad-nauseum. Marriage is not a 50:50 proposition if entered into properly

Sagamite, stop fighting the inevitable.

Ondo girl huh? No gainsaying, they make great wives. And via e-introduction. That may well be a first. So long as we get the job done sha!

Best
TV

What attendant benefits of marriage?

Please explain to me how co-habitation will damage a child. Not how break up of parents damage a child.

As I have told you before, the due diligence required to know what someone you grew up with will do in the future is already hard enough, talkless of someone you hardly know and just met. I am very confiddent very few people here will think it is responsible and sufficient to say your due diligence was done based on one date and marrying the person 3 months later. There is NO WAY you can state you know the person well and claim you are sure your marriage will be successful so you don't need to worry about any risk. That is not entering marriage properly. Faith is not due diligence or responsible.

Would you put your child in a plane if 50% of planes crash? Would you still put your child on the plane of an airline that have the best record of crashes? Or you would say "NO, I am a responsible parent who loves my child and values their life"?

Sagamite:

What attendant benefits of marriage?

Please explain to me how co-habitation will damage a child. Not how break up of parents damage a child.

As I have told you before, the due diligence required to know what someone you grew up with will do in the future is already hard enough, talkless of someone you hardly know and just met. I am very confiddent very few people here will think it is responsible and sufficient to say your due diligence was done based on one date and marrying the person 3 months later. There is NO WAY you can state you know the person well and claim you are sure your marriage will be successful so you don't need to worry about any risk. That is not entering marriage properly. Faith is not due diligence or responsible.

Would you put your child in a plane if 50% of planes crash? Would you still put your child on the plane of an airline that have the best record of crashes? Or you would say "NO, I am a responsible parent who loves my child and values their life"?

Did you read the studies I posted?
- I'm not saying co-hab damages per-se, just that it's not as beneficial as marriage
- I met and did dilligence in 3 months. We married 8 months later
- We did not have just the one date, but I knew she was a strong candidate after the 1st one.
- Truth be told, there was groundwork before I actually pursued that first date. And it was ongoing afterwards, till I had peace.
- It's a mix of knowing the person and understanding what they want. Both will continue to develop. The key is to grow together and remain comitted.
- You can know someone for ever and never really know them and people continue to develop. If you want to know them perfectly prior, just forget it. People here will echo that.
- That criteria is a red herring and reeks of fear/insecurity.
- Please leave of on the 50% anology. Its another straw man.

NL awaits

TV

TV01:

Did you read the studies I posted?
- I'm not saying co-hab damages per-se, just that it's not as beneficial as marriage
- I met and did dilligence in 3 months. We married 8 months later
- We did not have just the one date, but I knew she was a strong candidate after the 1st one.
- Truth be told, there was groundwork before I actually pursued that first date. And it was ongoing afterwards, till I had peace.
- It's a mix of knowing the person and understanding what they want. Both will continue to develop. The key is to grow together and remain comitted.
- You can know someone for ever and never really know them and people continue to develop. If you want to know them perfectly prior, just forget it. People here will echo that.
- That criteria is a red herring and reeks of fear/insecurity.
- Please leave of on the 50% anology. Its another straw man.

NL awaits

TV

- I read it, I did not see any part where it said kids raised by co-habiting couples are less balanced than kids raised by married couples. If you see any part that does from your link, please post it as a quote here.

- A 3 month due diligence on a woman is irresponsible. Even my male friends that I have known for over 10 years, that I understand, hang out with and blab to cannot know me enough to know all I am capable off. Neither do I know all they are capable of to put my life in their hands. Talkless of someone of the opposite sex that is known for irrationality, not knowing what they want and who is of a sex that generally dislike and distrust each other (for valid reasons). I will not know much about them in 3 months, especially if they are at an age of being eager to marry, which I can reasonably guess was the case here. I take it she was over 28 when you met her? Because ages north of that number are when women are usually keen to marry under short notice?

- Even if you had one date everyday for 3 months, you will not know enough about her to show it is responsible to place the risk of damaging you all in her hands. And I am sure in 3 months, you could not have met her for more than 30 days. in total I don't think it is responsible to say you would put that much faith in someone you have only known for 30 days and procreate with them when kids suffer if they are from a broken home.

- You need to specify what groundwork you did that we are not aware of to understand how due diligence can be conducted.

- Not every one develops or develop in the right areas. Some deteriorate. To put your faith in someone "developing", and not considering "deteriorating", that is hope.

- No it is not a strawman, you gave me reports that state kids are damaged if raised in broken relationship. You are the same man that labelled a man irresponsible for wanting to be single at 50, hence we are discussing responsibility here. So is it not irresponsible if you put your child or bring a child into something with a 50% fail ratio where failure would be bad for them? You brought them into it on the basis of hope. Who is more irresponsible, Clooney or you?

Sagamite:

- I read it, I did not see any part where it said kids raised by co-habiting couples are less balanced than kids raised by married couples. If you see any part that does from your link, please post it as a quote here.

The inference is not necessarily direct. But I'm sure it's a small thing for you to grasp that the greater robustness of proper marriage vs. co-hab, means it's altogether better for raising kids. QED.

Sagamite:
- A 3 month due diligence on a woman is irresponsible. Even my friends that I have known for over 10 years and hang out with and blab to cannot know me enough to know all I am capable off. Neither do I know all they are capable of to put my life in their hands.

Please don't confuse a proper courtship with "hanging out". Happy to hear your thoughts on what constitutes a reasonable amount of time to get to know someone prior to marriage. Studies to show a direct correlation between this time and the success of the union would also help.

Focus on being and finding a mature person of well developed character. Then you'll have a good idea of what they are capable of. This your idea to know someone perfectly and for an extremely long time sounds suspiciously like self-obstruction. Wetin you dey fear? WHile you are still looking, sharp dudes will sneak in! Nothing wrong with quick-sharp when you know what's up.

Sagamite:
Talkless of someone of the opposite sex that is known for irrationality and not knowing what they want. I will not know much about them in 3 months, especially if they are at an age of being eager to marry, which I can reasonably guess was the case here. I take it she was over 28 when you met her? Because ages north of that number is when woman are usually keen to marry under short notice?

My approach, sincerity and the value proposition I put to my WTB, was simply compelling. Most women know when it's time to discard or at least leash that irrationalty nonsense. When they see and appreciate better thing they normally shape up. But seriously, like I said earlier, "focus on being and finding..."

Sagamite:
- Even if you had one date everyday for 3 months, you will not know enough about her to show it is responsible to place the risk of damaging you all in her hands. And I am sure in 3 months, you could not have met her for more than 30 days. in total I don't think it is responsible to say you would put that much faith in someone you have only known for 30 days and procreate with them when kids suffer if they are from a broken home.

Couch it how you please, I essentially did just that and it's working great. We have been married for over a year, with a son. No regrets or doubts. My wifes character is exactly how I found it. I continue to find out new and delightful things about my wife, even as she continues to grow and develop. As do we both, and mostly together. Especially from our interaction as a couple. That's part of the journey. When a woman meets a mature man, she either steps up or the man steps away. She can go back to being someones GF.

Sagamite:
- You need to specify what groundwork you did that we are not aware of to understand how due diligence can be conducted.

- Not every one develops or develop in the right areas. Some deteriorate. To put your faith under someone developing is hope.

The issue tends to be people "seeing" marriage as opposed to "understanding" it combined with looking to satisfy their needs through marriage instead of developing their characters for it. Nail that part you are ready. Just find someone of like maturity and vision. For deeper discussion ,please open the thread. I'm sure there are many here that can lend credence, be it with hind or foresight.

Being married,if anything increases your chances of developing right. Someone to focus, explore and journey with. The very fact that you have someone for whom you are responsible and to encourage & if required chastise you, must be better than the isolation of singleness, which lends itself more to developing odd behaviours (eccentricity/set in your ways?).

Sagamite:
- No it is not a strawman, you gave me reports that state kids are damaged if raised in broken relationship. You are the same man that labelled a man irresponsible for wanting to be single at 50. So is it not irresponsible if you put your child or bring a child into something with a 50% fail ratio? You brought them into it on the basis of hope. Who is more irresponsible, Clooney or you?

- You conflate and confuse. The premise is that all things being equal, kids fare better in a traditional marriage setting. I can't speak for every unique case in every setting. A super rich single mom of 1 may well do better than an impoverished couple trying to raise 11 kids in a ghetto. Does that mean we now champion single motherhood? And to the point, are you championing co-habitation as a better alternative than marriage? Why exactly are you pursuing this? I thought you were going with Tappimony.

- Again, look at it uniquely. The universal figure of 50% is not typical of properly built unions.
- And even if it was, it's still better than any alternatives you can offer up.
- Clooney is not irresponsible for not marrying, or not having kids (does he?) it's his tappimony, the effects and the messages it sends


Start practising your dance moves. If you see the way I threw down eh! Lai kuli !!!!

Best
TV

TV01:

The inference is not necessarily direct. But I'm sure it's a small thing for you to grasp that the greater robustness of proper marriage vs. co-hab, means it's altogether better for raising kids. QED.

So your link had no evidence? So you have no evidence for the statement you made then?

I guessed as much that is why I asked for evidence. [size=4pt][s]I am dbanj or skibanj like my jamaicans friends call me[/s][/size] I am Sagamite or Sagalulu like my Sister-in-laws call me, I don't let anyone BS me.

Kids will do okay as long as they live with both biological parents that care about them and each other, married or not. Please next time infer or Ifa that, don't try and BS me with "facts" made from thin air.

TV01:
Please don't confuse a proper courtship with "hanging out". Happy to hear your thoughts on what constitutes a reasonable amount of time to get to know someone prior to marriage. Studies to show a direct correlation between this time and the success of the union would also help.

Focus on being and finding a mature person of well developed character. Then you'll have a good idea of what they are capable of. This your idea to know someone perfectly and for an extremely long time sounds suspiciously like self-obstruction. Wetin you dey fear? WHile you are still looking, sharp dudes will sneak in! Nothing wrong with quick-sharp when you know what's up.

The longer you know someone the better. DEFINITELY 3 months is by no way sufficient. You are less likely to tell the dos and don'ts of the other person especially if they decide to pretend. You need sufficient time to see them react under difference circumstances (especially pressure) and how they cope and adapt to change.

The less time you get to know them, the higher the risk you don't know them and the higher the risk of your marriage. Let sharp guys have them, I am the ultimate prize, the girls lose.

TV01:
My approach, sincerity and the value proposition I put to my WTB, was simply compelling. Most women know when it's time to discard or at least leash that irrationalty nonsense. When they see and appreciate better thing they normally shape up. But seriously, like I said earlier, "focus on being and finding..."

No doubt. Something we agree on.

But you should also know women know how to pretend to be something else to get what THEY want, their is a risk they might revert when they get what they want. Most definitely behave different when they are the ones with power, they frequently abuse it without any contrition. Evident in the divorce robberies we have seen. Feel free to read women's response here and how ALL are non-chalant or excuse their bad behaviour:

https://www.nairaland.com/962850/ladies-which-these-dating-evils

That is why I think your likes are playing Russian roulette when you have shot-gun wedding and have no bazooka pre-nup while living in the West. You didn't answer my question: She was North of 28 when you met her?

TV01:
Couch it how you please, I essentially did just that and it's working great. We have been married for over a year, with a son. No regrets or doubts. My wifes character is exactly how I found it. I continue to find out new and delightful things about my wife, even as she continues to grow and develop. As do we both, and mostly together. Especially from our interaction as a couple. That's part of the journey. When a woman meets a mature man, she either steps up or the man steps away. She can go back to being someones GF.

Good for you, bruv. That is great.

Though I note you are just getting to know her. You did jump on it on faith, not due diligence. Lets say you are a lucky man with your Russian Roulette.

I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't take drugs and I don't gamble (definitely not with my life and future).

TV01:
The issue tends to be people "seeing" marriage as opposed to "understanding" it combined with looking to satisfy their needs through marriage instead of developing their characters for it. Nail that part you are ready. Just find someone of like maturity and vision. For deeper discussion ,please open the thread. I'm sure there are many here that can lend credence, be it with hind or foresight.

Being married,if anything increases your chances of developing right. Someone to focus, explore and journey with. The very fact that you have someone for whom you are responsible and to encourage & if required chastise you, must be better than the isolation of singleness, which lends itself more to developing odd behaviours (eccentricity/set in your ways?).

This is all verbose.

Please tell us the due diligence you said you did.

TV01:
- You conflate and confuse. The premise is that all things being equal, kids fare better in a traditional marriage setting. I can't speak for every unique case in every setting. A super rich single mom of 1 may well do better than an impoverished couple trying to raise 11 kids in a ghetto. Does that mean we now champion single motherhood? And to the point, are you championing co-habitation as a better alternative than marriage? Why exactly are you pursuing this? I thought you were going with Tappimony.

- Again, look at it uniquely. The universal figure of 50% is not typical of properly built unions.
- And even if it was, it's still better than any alternatives you can offer up.
- Clooney is not irresponsible for not marrying, or not having kids (does he?) it's his tappimony, the effects and the messages it sends


Start practising your dance moves. If you see the way I threw down eh! Lai kuli !!!!

Best
TV

More verbose.

Kids are affected when one parent is missing. Don't bring lame comparisons. Don't BS me.

Please give your evidence that kids fair better in traditional marriage than in committed co-habiting.

Please give your evidence that kids fair better when their parents can make Akara over kids of another set of parents that can not.

Please tell me how shot-gun marriages and not getting to know yourselves rigorously are properly built unions.

Please enlighten me on the tapwater Clooney dey send around the world that is irresponsible.

TV01:

As long as we get there I am happy. Marriage has made me a team player. I'ma tell wifey to block out the day/weekend/whole month of celebration.

Now, about HaraKiri....

What about "Harakiri"?

Miss_Ife: OMG !!! I'm gonna get really mad now ! So I left for just a few hours and the one simple little thing I asked for, nobody remembered ?!

Saga is getting married and I haven't even got an invitation ! o ma se o !!


Anyways, Saga, congratulations, though I'm not quite sure whose sister you're getting married to, having either CC or ronke as in-laws is enough for u to have my blessing Go and marry NOOOOOWWW !! And this time, don't mess up and don't forget ME ! I'm ready for a BIG party !

Now, as TV rightly pointed out, where's harakiri ? Who has a sister left for him ?

harraaaaaakiiiiirriiiiii ? Come here, we gotta talk

Come...wetin dey happen hia sef? Wetin harakiri do una?

ronkebp:
Harakiri has taken to his heels !!!

Hmmm....okay ooo!

chaircover: No be only him oooooo

Even dayo, Harakiri and co will accompany him and fold their agbada neatly and prostrate down to aunty ronke the iya iyawo

Somebody dey find trouble oooo!

Sagamite:
Let sharp guys have them, I am the ultimate prize, the girls lose.

Classic Sagamite.

harakiri:

What about "Harakiri"?

Many here on NL have your long-term best interest at heart.

Appreciate (and take copious notes).

TV

Sagamite:
So your link had no evidence? So you have no evidence for the statement you made then?

I guessed as much that is why I asked for evidence. [size=4pt][s]I am dbanj or skibanj like my jamaicans friends call me[/s][/size] I am Sagamite or Sagalulu like my Sister-in-laws call me, I don't let anyone BS me.

I don't shovel BS. Traditional married families are more robust than any other "family" arrangement. Ergo they are better for raising children.

Sagamite:
Kids will do okay as long as they live with both biological parents that care about them and each other, married or not. Please next time infer or Ifa that, don't try and BS me with "facts" made from thin air.

- That can prpbably be argued if the everything is the same including the duration of the relationship.
- But bearing in mind a number of things, our cultural background, your getting married, your getting married to a betta girl,ponder this; Where will
you find this girl that will agree to co-habit with you till "death-do-part"? Why are you proclaiming a facsimile of marriage, whilst railing
against marriage itself? Fear cash you abi?

Sagamite:
The longer you know someone the better. DEFINITELY 3 months is by no way sufficient. You are less likely to tell the dos and don'ts of the other person especially if they decide to pretend. You need sufficient time to see them react under difference circumstances (especially pressure) and how they cope and adapt to change.

- What is sufficient? What do you have to know that you can't find out in 3 months?
- People of "character" don't pretend. Pretenders will expose themselves one way or another. Character flaws will always manifest.
- Pressure is a good point. And indeed, reactions can vary based on type and intensity of pressure. But that cuts both ways, so seek "character"
- Like the type and intensity of pressure,you cannot legislate for the nature and depth of change. Again, seek character and maturity.
- Character and maturity will bring committment,compassion,humility, loving care, support and if required sacrifice. Don't confuse it with personality.

Sagamite:
The less time you get to know them, the higher the risk you don't know them and the higher the risk of your marriage. Let sharp guys have them, I am the ultimate prize, the girls lose.

- How long does it take to get to know someone?
- How long does it take to communicate to someone what you are about, what you are after and explore to see if there is common ground.
- Real sharp,mature guys,can spot and recognise value very quickly. They can weigh up and act accordingly.
- Omo, let me be frank with you; God forbid you get hit by a bus tomorrow; I am pretty sure there is not a single girl who will declare no Saga, no
marriage.
- The type of woman you picture yourself with will not change. But you will. If you dwawdle, one day you'll realise that you've changed to a degree
that means that type will not give you face. Please don't let that happen. You can't be at your peak forever.

Sagamite:
But you should also know women know how to pretend to be something else to get what THEY want, their is a risk they might revert when they get what they want. Most definitely behave different when they are the ones with power, they frequently abuse it without any contrition. Evident in the divorce robberies we have seen. Feel free to read women's response here and how ALL are non-chalant or excuse their bad behaviour:

Sagamite:
https://www.nairaland.com/962850/ladies-which-these-dating-evils

I'll have a read, just for a laugh. But I think you miss the point; you should be mature and savvy enough to see pretenders far off. They shouldn't even get the time of day. I was that and prayerful to God for guidance, protection and discernment.

A man should be able to spend a working days length of time with a woman and by the end of it have a good idea of 1. The type of person she is and 2. if she is marriage material.

3 months?? 3 whole months I should be considered hesitant and overcautious sef. Let me share this, most of the numerous girls I considered, didn't get past a few weeks before they got moved on. Loads where ditched after a phone call (pre-date chat, ultimatelymeant no date), many after a single date. All that built into a finely honed sense of what to look for and how to go about it and continously updated the profile of what I was after in a wife. I still had faith.

Sagamite:
That is why I think your likes are playing Russian roulette when you have shot-gun wedding and have no bazooka pre-nup while living in the West. You didn't answer my question: She was North of 28 when you met her?

It was so not a gamble. And you shoot yourself in the foot, seeking to mitigate the financial fallout of possible failure instead of building a foundation for success. The commitment of marriage is not by contract - at any point.

In fact, does a pre-nup actually speak to risk? No. Life is a risk. You can't guarantee anything about tomorrow.

Yes, she was north of 28, but the one she usuroed - obviously she didn't know it - was 27. Girls may in some ways "mature" faster than boys, but they don't necessarily develop character any faster.

Sagamite:
Good for you, bruv. That is great.

Though I note you are just getting to know her. You did jump on it on faith, not due diligence. Lets say you are a lucky man with your Russian Roulette.

Don't I know it,but it was not by luck or mere chance.
You may call it faith if you choose, but it wasn't blind. Faith drives my beliefs, worldview, thinking, actions etc. It doesn't mean I rush into situations blindly or without due consideration. On the contrary. I absolutely conducted what I understood to be the requisite level of due dilligence.

Sagamite:
I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't take drugs and I don't gamble (definitely not with my life and future).

That's me to a "t". I married, my life is the richer and my future brighter.

Sagamite:
This is all verbose.

Please tell us the due diligence you said you did.

Hve you not figured this from all I've written?

Sagamite:
More verbose.

Kids are affected when one parent is missing. Don't bring lame comparisons. Don't BS me.

Please give your evidence that kids fair better in traditional marriage than in committed co-habiting.

Please give your evidence that kids fair better when their parents can make Akara over kids of another set of parents that can not.

Please tell me how shot-gun marriages and not getting to know yourselves rigorously are properly built unions.

Please enlighten me on the tapwater Clooney dey send around the world that is irresponsible.

Saga, take it from me, it's so easy and so sweet when you get it right.

Best
TV

TV01:

I don't shovel BS. Traditional married families are more robust than any other "family" arrangement. Ergo they are better for raising children.

- That can prpbably be argued if the everything is the same including the duration of the relationship.
- But bearing in mind a number of things, our cultural background, your getting married, your getting married to a betta girl,ponder this; Where will
you find this girl that will agree to co-habit with you till "death-do-part"? Why are you proclaiming a facsimile of marriage, whilst railing
against marriage itself? Fear cash you abi?


- What is sufficient? What do you have to know that you can't find out in 3 months?
- People of "character" don't pretend. Pretenders will expose themselves one way or another. Character flaws will always manifest.
- Pressure is a good point. And indeed, reactions can vary based on type and intensity of pressure. But that cuts both ways, so seek "character"
- Like the type and intensity of pressure,you cannot legislate for the nature and depth of change. Again, seek character and maturity.
- Character and maturity will bring committment,compassion,humility, loving care, support and if required sacrifice. Don't confuse it with personality.



- How long does it take to get to know someone?
- How long does it take to communicate to someone what you are about, what you are after and explore to see if there is common ground.
- Real sharp,mature guys,can spot and recognise value very quickly. They can weigh up and act accordingly.
- Omo, let me be frank with you; God forbid you get hit by a bus tomorrow; I am pretty sure there is not a single girl who will declare no Saga, no
marriage.
- The type of woman you picture yourself with will not change. But you will. If you dwawdle, one day you'll realise that you've changed to a degree
that means that type will not give you face. Please don't let that happen. You can't be at your peak forever.


I'll have a read, just for a laugh. But I think you miss the point; you should be mature and savvy enough to see pretenders far off. They shouldn't even get the time of day. I was that and prayerful to God for guidance, protection and discernment.

A man should be able to spend a working days length of time with a woman and by the end of it have a good idea of 1. The type of person she is and 2. if she is marriage material.

3 months?? 3 whole months I should be considered hesitant and overcautious sef. Let me share this, most of the numerous girls I considered, didn't get past a few weeks before they got moved on. Loads where ditched after a phone call (pre-date chat, ultimatelymeant no date), many after a single date. All that built into a finely honed sense of what to look for and how to go about it and continously updated the profile of what I was after in a wife. I still had faith.



It was so not a gamble. And you shoot yourself in the foot, seeking to mitigate the financial fallout of possible failure instead of building a foundation for success. The commitment of marriage is not by contract - at any point.

In fact, does a pre-nup actually speak to risk? No. Life is a risk. You can't guarantee anything about tomorrow.

Yes, she was north of 28, but the one she usuroed - obviously she didn't know it - was 27. Girls may in some ways "mature" faster than boys, but they don't necessarily develop character any faster.



Don't I know it,but it was not by luck or mere chance.
You may call it faith if you choose, but it wasn't blind. Faith drives my beliefs, worldview, thinking, actions etc. It doesn't mean I rush into situations blindly or without due consideration. On the contrary. I absolutely conducted what I understood to be the requisite level of due dilligence.



That's me to a "t". I married, my life is the richer and my future brighter.



Hve you not figured this from all I've written?



Saga, take it from me, it's so easy and so sweet when you get it right.

Best
TV

Mate, you are wasting my time. I am seeing you are playing "I know go carry last" and have decided to dig in with your "facts from thin air" since you have no evidence to back it up.

Let me summarise what I have shown you and is obvious:
- Marriage is not a duty, it is a choice.
- It is ridiculous to say someone is irresponsible or immature for not wanting to marry or not marrying.
- Marriage is not sign of responsibility, at best, you can call it adorable.
- You do not need marriage to raise balanced children.
- Marriage is man-made, God had nada to do with it.
- Your marriage process is like Russian roulette when you did not perform due diligence and hardly knew your partner to go into something with over 50% failure rate.
- You took a risk and let a woman have your balls in her hands by having a shotgun wedding, you have no clue what she can do in the future and should have had a prenup IF you care about you assets.
- You are in marriage based on blind faith and you are not in control of anything, hence more irresponsible than someone that is not married.
- It is not because she was mature that she married you after a short courtship, she most likely resigned to faith and would not have done the same if she was younger.



I will give you one good news though. This is coming from the brain of Saga Saga, the one and only:
- I think you might be lucky that your marriage may potentially be happy IF you selected a good woman and combine it with your enthusiasm for marriage.
- Since she was over 28, she could possibly be very determined to make you as happy as possible to convince herself that other guys missed out by not picking her early. Secondly, she will do all she can to make sure the marriage is successful because she does not ever want to face the possibility of facing the pit of loneliness again (and you OBVIOUSLY will do likewise).
- This is accidental, not because of your due diligence.
- That is just the potential benefits of marrying a women that was not lucky to have married early: they might work harder at it.


I don't gamble, I like to have more control on my life and not leave it to faith in the face of arrangements that has far over 50% fail rate.

TV01:

Many here on NL have your long-term best interest at heart.

Appreciate (and take copious notes).

TV

And how does being married translate into being in my "long term best interest"? Hmmm?

@Sagamite

Mate, you are wasting my time. I am seeing you are playing "I know go carry last" and have decided to dig in with your "facts from thin air" since you have no evidence to back it up.

Let me summarise what I have shown you and is obvious:
- Marriage is not a duty, it is a choice.

Abeg, helep me tellu dem. I don tire to dey repeat this same thing over and over and over and over for this forum. Matter of fact, i don tire to talk the same thing for nairaland repeatedly.

- It is ridiculous to say someone is irresponsible or immature for not wanting to marry or not marrying.

Let me help you stress this point by reinforcing it with religious contexts. The biblical David was a married man but that didn't stop him from commiting adultery with Uzziah's wife. His son Solomon was married to at least 700 wives but that didn't stop him from having at least 300 concumbines a.k.a mistresses a.k.a "assistant girlfriends".

- Marriage is not sign of responsibility, at best, you can call it adorable.

Thank you very much. I don't know how many times i will repeat this point. That is why i didn't bother involving myself in your lengthy banter with him. A lot of my associates (not friends) are married and i still remain a symbol of maturity amongst them. Some of them are well over 45yrs old and yet, they behave and act like kids under stressful conditions. They sleep with more ladies than single men and yet...some people still have delusions that marriage makes men more "responsible".

- You do need marriage to raise balanced children.

I don't agree with this but i do agree that a male and female parent create a balance for the well being of the child. Marriage is not a must. They is something called "live-in-relationships".

- Marriage is man-made, God had nada to do with it.

You should be asking them to show concrete proof that their god actually created marriage. That would stump them in their tracks.

- Your marriage process is like Russian roulette when you did not perform due diligence and hardly knew your partner to go into something with over 50% failure rate.

- You took a risk and let a woman have your balls in her hands by having a shotgun wedding, you have no clue what she can do in the future and should have had a prenup IF you care about you assets.

- You are in marriage based on blind faith and you are not in control of anything, hence more irresponsible than someone that is not married.

- It is not because she was mature that she married you after a short courtship, she most likely resigned to faith and would not have done the same if she was younger.

I will give you one good news though. This is coming from the brain of Saga Saga, the one and only:
- I think you might be lucky that your marriage may potentially be happy IF you selected a good woman and combine it with your enthusiasm for marriage.
- Since she was over 28, she could possibly be very determined to make you as happy as possible to convince herself that other guys missed out by not picking her early. Secondly, she will do all she can to make sure the marriage is successful because she does not ever want to face the possibility of facing the pit of loneliness again (and you OBVIOUSLY will do likewise).
- This is accidental, not because of your due diligence.
- That is just the potential benefits of marrying a women that was not lucky to have married early: they might work harder at it.

True.

I don't gamble, I like to have more control on my life and not leave it to faith in the face of arrangements that has far over 50% fail rate.

Nuff said.

harakiri:
I don't agree with this but i do agree that a male and female parent create a balance for the well being of the child. Marriage is not a must. They is something called "live-in-relationships".

Sorry, mate. I forgot to add "not", I have modified it.

- You do not need marriage to raise balanced children.

Another thing I forgot to add is that:

- Marriage is more beneficial to women, so if I was to marry for a woman, it would be on my own terms. From my world experience, women know how to take a piss if you do not put your foot down. That is not to say men don't benefit from marriage. The functional word is "more".

Historically, marriage is a failed institution and, based on the existing & emerging factors/influences, would remain a failed institution. It is highly irresponsible for anyone to say go for it blindly and ignore the failures without any solid plan of how to make it successful or protect oneself from the risk (especially as a man living in the West).

That is not to say marriage is not to an extent beneficial to society. It is beneficial but it is a failure when judged by the lulu, fairytale expectations and ideals associated with, and expected from, it.

- 50% fail ending up in divorce.
- Imagine the ones that have failed and died without partners bothering to go through the divorce process or still there to put up a public front. Maybe about 30%.
- Then from the remaining 20% add the ones where couples still love each other but one of them has committed adultery, the other forgave and carried on ........OR just did not know.

By the time you add all the percentages together. Marriage gets an F grade and it is ridiculous anyone can sit there and champion it by attacking those that are not interested in it.

That is not to say those that want to marry shouldn't but my advise to guys: Get a prenup.

@Sagamite

Sorry, mate. I forgot to add "not", I have modified it.

Noted.

- You do not need marriage to raise balanced children.

Another thing I forgot to add is that:

- Marriage is more beneficial to women, so if I was to marry for a woman, it would be on my own terms. That is not to say men don't benefit from marriage. The functional word is "more".

Don't be so modest. Marriage is, has and will ALWAYS be a WOMAN'S THING!!! The main reason father's of old created the concept of "marriage" is to protect the interest of their beloved daughters. No one wants their little girls knocked for nothing with no "responsible man" to hold on to. That's the truth. Let these religious nuts show me one single verifiable proof that their biblical god created marriage and i'll eat sand for dinner! Word!!!

Historically, marriage is a failed institution and, based on the existing & emerging factors/influences, would remain a failed institution. It is highly irresponsible for anyone to say go for it blindly and ignore the failures without any solid plan of how to make it successful.

I don't know about "history" but in today's day and age, marriage is as good as dead and buried. It's nothing but a fad. Everyone is desperately trying to keep up with the Joneses. More or less like getting the new black berry.

That is not to say marriage is not to an extent beneficial to society. It is beneficial but it is a failure when judged by the lulu expectations and ideals associated with it.

Quit being so modest. Can you mention one benefit of marriage to society?

- 50% fail ending up in divorce.

- Imagine the ones that have failed and died without partners bothering to go through the divorce process. Maybe about 30%.

- Then add the ones where couples still love each other but one of them has committed adultery, the other forgave and carried on OR just did not know.

By the time you add all the percentages together. Marriage gets an F grade and it is ridiculous anyone can sit there and champion it by attacking those that are not interested in it.