Sagamite:




He will come out when he is retired.

Well, at least he's dropping all the hints he can...so y'all won't be surprised at that point



I'll be patiently waiting for him

tearoses:



Thats what I thought
Meanwhile the 7 million property wasn't mentioned in the settlement.
Who got the property? Him or her?

I am almost sure that he tried to pull a fast one on her and she went and got the best lawyers in town to fight her case and she got more than she initially asked for. Hell hath no fury than a woman scorned

BTW this happened in 2009 and Ive read more on the story thanks to google
He actually resigned from his job in 2004 . . claiming he was fed up of the lavish lifestyle and wanted to downsize
Who does that?
He probably deliberately resigned so that he wont have to pay a big divorce settlement . . who knows
The man is not straight forward sha and he met his match.

See below:
He also found that Family Division judge Mrs Justice Parker was not justified in deciding that Mr Murphy had wasted £2million of the family assets after separating from his art director wife Helene in 2006.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/128393/Banker-husband-wins-bigger-share-of-2-5m-divorce

Sagamite:
You mean the kind of marriage where you are a man that is together enough to bury your head in the sand, stick your finger in the air and bare the compromise-filled union while claiming you are happy?

Abeg, I will pass.

I doubt you can call that a marriage success rate. At best call it a compromise success rate.

People sticking together because they feel their religion, proposed by medieval illiterates, forbids then to leave each other is not a sign of marriage success.

Those are not the kinds of marriages for Saga Saga. I would rather have multiple happy marriages than one miserable compromising marriage.

You still present as confused - in a number of ways;

1. If marriage can literally never be enjoyed, your campaign should be against marriage, not divorce - why undego the stress of an unhappy union, only to suffer further stress upon divorce - which is surely more likely if the union is unhappy?

2. If marriage is indeed typically unhappy, why do you think your chances of having a string of happy marriages is high?

3. What is stopping you doing it Hugh Hefner - or any other style - and championing that. No one is forced to marry or structure their relationships in a way they find unpalatable.

4. You've come again with the medieval illiterates ish. Firstly, books are no twritten by illiterates are they? And evidence abounds of thier accomplishments. Please remind us of when you first had storey building in Sagamu

Sagamite:
Marriage is a failure institution and a failed institution throughout history (if assessed by Christian/Western/Hollywood/Modern metrics).

It would even be more so in the modern world we live. It does not fit with it and we need to find a new better model just like Christianity, Islam, etc do not fit with our modern age.

They might have been expedient in the past, but we as a human race have moved past that past. (Fck me, see Saga rhyming like a rapper. I am too good, men! Who the fck is Jay Z?)

The world is more connected, people are more beautiful, portrayal of sexual images and sexual activities are more proliferated, the family structure is changing, breadwinners are more mixed.

Sticking to your concept of marriage is like the would sticking to coal as the main source of world fuel and want to die to maintain it.

Mate, we have gone to hydrocarbon and about to move to hydro and other green fuels.

Marriage is, was, and always will be fine. It's people who fail at it, due to a lack of undertanding or desire to shape it after their lusts and not it's design. There is always change, and "progress" continues. It does not mean that it is all good or works better.

If it has indeed failed, present something better. You have the scope and the intellect no? All you've managed so far is to rail at divorce laws - which I agree to a degree can be clumsy at best - but find, present and more importantly, practice a better way.

Blaze a trail, let the whole world look and wonder. Let marriage be condenmed by the sheer brilliance and utilty of "Sagamony" ! Afterall, Apple does not spend a plugged nickel dissing Nokia, it simply presents it's products.

Sagamite:
Well, the world if full of deluded and moronic people. This is no an argument.

It wasn't an argument - it was a statement of fact and evidence of what obtains.

Sagamite:
Which God?

Sango?

The God of The Bible

Sagamite:
I think you don't even grasp the basics of what I noted as a social announcement. This does not meet the intellectual threshold to even bless it with a response.

Continue dreaming!

If a relationship is in the "announcement - announce the optimum one you have put together. Live it and let us marvel. No true intellect spends ages raging against a percieved problem without offering a plausible alternative.

You've dissed marriage to the heavens. Fine. We have heard, now what? All we've seen is wailing about the divorce laws. Give us something to pause and consider mate!

Sagamite:
You are free to send your church girls my way though as one of those always trying to get me to marry. I will help you sample them IN THE NAME OF THA LORD!

I have no church, and I'd be the first to say "church girls" must be stressed with due dilligence like any other. And ahead of trying to get you to marry, I need you to understand what marriage is, then find someone that gets agrees or is willing to follow your lead.

We are still waiting for your boast of SagaKids. Apply your domestic ideals, have these kids and raise them optimally within it, as a demonstration of your superior intellect and relationship model.

Till then, it's all wind. Please mention me when you come up with something


TV

TV01:

Facts, not fear. How one responds to the facts is down to them. Spread your gospel, if it's superior, people will hear it .

Gospels are for religious people, I am not one of them.

Before Christinity, and also before government, but not before God. And provisions for marriage, where narrow, tightly defined and rarely in view.

And you know it how exactly? Let me guess, it is written in the Bible.

Your view of divorce, is as a logical outcome of marriage - based essentially on "feelings". You don't use facts, you use deceit.


TV

It is a logical outcome of marriage since the Christian concept of marriage is a social and religious construct that violates nature.
And your ridicule of feelings won't change the fact that every human being is an emotional being and not only rational. And if you feel that you have to sacrifice your good feelings for an institution, you are free to do so. I will pass. My happiness is more important than any religious doctrine. I am not purely rational, I am very emotional and I love it.

I use the fact that every human being desires to feel good. You use the Bible and call its content a fact, which is more disputable than my standing that it is natural for any being to want to feel good.

TV01:
You still present as confused - in a number of ways;

1. If marriage can literally never be enjoyed, your campaign should be against marriage, not divorce - why undego the stress of an unhappy union, only to suffer further stress upon divorce - which is surely more likely if the union is unhappy?

2. If marriage is indeed typically unhappy, why do you think your chances of having a string of happy marriages is high?

3. What is stopping you do it Hugh Hefner - or any other style - and championing that. No one is forced to marry or structure their relationships in a way they find unpalatable.

4. You've come again with the medieval illiterates ish. Firstly, books are no twritten by illiterates are they? And evidence abounds of thier accomplishments. Please remind us of when you first had storey building in Sagamu

Where have you seen me "campaign against divorce"?

And you are saying I am the one confused?

The second question, again, does not meet the intellectual threshold.

And who told you I am not doing Hugh Hefner or I have not signed up to his tutorial classes? Who told you I am planning to or forcing people to marry or not to marry? And I am the one confused?

Accomplishment? What fcking evidence? What fcking accomplishment?

What school did Jesus or Mohammed go to?

University of Capentry in Jerusalem and Mecca Institute of Peace and International Diplomacy?

Sagamu was the centre of development as far back as 625BC. It was where scholars travelled far and wide to acquire knowledge from the famous Sagamu Institute of Technology that was founded in 701BC as a Babalawo Training School. It got its university charter in 673BC.

TV01:

Marriage is, was, and always will be fine. It's people who fail at it, due to a lack of undertanding or desire to shape it after their lusts and not it's design. There is always change, and "progress" continues. It does not mean that it is all good or works better.

If it has indeed failed, present something better. You have the scope and the intellect no? All you've managed so far is to rail at divorce laws - which I agree to a degree can be clumsy at best - but find, present and more importantly, practice a better way.

Blaze a trail, let the whole world look and wonder. Let marriage be condenmed by the sheer brilliance and utilty of "Sagamony" ! Afterall, Apple does not spend a plugged nickel dissing Nokia, it simply presents it's products.

It wasn't an argument - it was a statement of fact and evidence of what obtains.

Before I even go into this, tell me your metrics of measuring success of marriage.

TV01:

The God of The Bible

So where was your Jehovah when my great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather, Ashikunu, went to Iperu to kidnap my great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother, Jikutusibe, after defeating her people and forced her into marriage?

Was that also before ya God? Or that was signed and approved by Sango?

TV01:

If a relationship is in the "announcement - announce the optimum one you have put together. Live it and let us marvel. No true intellect spends ages raging against a percieved problem without offering a plausible alternative.

You've dissed marriage to the heavens. Fine. We have heard, now what? All we've seen is wailing about the divorce laws. Give us something to pause and consider mate!

You need to learn to dissociate my arguments about unfair, sexist divorce laws from my argument about the failed institution of marriage and then you will find it simpler and less confusing.

I have actually composed a write-up about the different kinds of adult relationship models we could have and that are available. But since NL went to the dogs, I have vowed never to waste my intellectual content on it, hence why I refuse to open the thread.

You think I would waste such on the cretins that now travail this forum?

When I find a platform to put it on, I will inform and invite you.

TV01:

I have no church, and I'd be the first to say "church girls" must be stressed with due dilligence like any other. And ahead of trying to get you to marry, I need you to understand what marriage is, then find someone that gets agrees or is willing to follow your lead.

We are still waiting for your boast of SagaKids. Apply your domestic ideals, have these kids and raise them optimally within it, as a demonstration on your superior intellect and relationship model.

Till then, it's all wind. Mention me when you come up with something


TV

You have no church?

You no dey go shush?

Mindfulness:
Gospels are for religious people, I am not one of them.

gospel [gos-puh l] noun
4. something regarded as true and implicitly believed:
to take his report for gospel.
5. a doctrine regarded as of prime importance:
political gospel.
6. glad tidings, especially concerning salvation and the kingdom of God as announced to the world by Christ.

Some readings/usages of the word gospel above. Timbuktou was right to point out you poor comprehension skills. As for being religious. You are the most evangelical about your beliefs here. If you like miscomprehend that .

Mindfulness:
And you know it how exactly? Let me guess, it is written in the Bible.

And you know it wasn't how exactly?

Mindfulness:
It is a logical outcome of marriage since the Christian concept of marriage is a social and religious construct that violates nature.

Finally, you are getting there - please explain why a lack of self-control, restraint, and aspiration to a greater good, and the higher - often spiritual - values that humans are capable of is now "unnatural" - just change your moniker to "Tingles", that's the whole basis of your ish .

Mindfulness:
And your ridicule of feelings won't change the fact that every human being is an emotional being and if you feel that you have to sacrifice feeling good for an institution, you are free to do so. I will pass. My happiness is more important than any religious doctrine.

Tim was wrong, it's not just comprehension . Who ridicules feelings? Men shoul dnot simply be led by them. Who said that humans ar enot emotional or that being happy is diametrically opposed to feeling good. Of course your happiness is more important than any religious doctrine - that is your religious dosctrine. And it's regardless of who gets hurt or the fallout. It's religion alright - just pagan.

Mindfulness:
I use the fact that every human being desires to feel good. You use the Bible and call its content a fact, which is more disputable than my standing that it is natural for any being to want to feel good.

Firstly, you have no way of knowing what every human being desires -and not in the order of priority. Or what each one defnes as good, or, it seems, an objective view of what good actually is.

Like I said, run with your gospel of "feel good" at all cost and regardless of the outcome for others. Be evangfelical about your doctrine of promiscuity and indiscriminate childbirth being rewarded with marriage to a wealthy eligible man. I for one have no desire to gainsay you.


TV

Sagamite:

Where have you seen me "campaign against divorce"?
And you are saying I am the one confused?
The second question, again, does not meet the intellectual threshold.

And who told you I am not doing Hugh Hefner or I have not signed up to his tutorial classes? Who told you I am planning to or forcing people to marry or not to marry? And I am the one confused?

Ok to be precise - you rail against divorce laws and their application, considering them unfair, You also didain marriage as a failed institution.

For divorce, I say work on the relationship at the point of entry, not exit. Without marriage, there could be no divorce. Even where provision is made, it is no tthe preferred or optimal outcome. Work to change the laws if you care to, but in a feminine led worls, good luck with that.

As for marriage, I utterly reject the notion that it is either failed or antiquated. For those that get it and apprehend it, it is a delight. Ask me .

Sagamite:

Accomplishment? What fcking evidence? What fcking accomplishment?

What school did Jesus or Mohammed go to?

University of Capentry in Jerusalem and Mecca Institute of Peace and International Diplomacy?

Sagamu was the centre of development as far back as 625BC. It was where scholars travelled far and wide to acquire knowledge from the famous Sagamu Institute of Technology that was founded in 701BC as a Babalawo Training School. It got its university charter in 673BC.

So, you take back the "illiterates" comment then !

Sagamite:
Before I even go into this, tell me your metrics of measuring success of marriage.

At an individual level, the dynamic and expectation may vary somewhat. Some men men think "as long as I have a son", some women, might be, "as long as he provides materially". It can be more, less,or none of those things. But the individual metric of success rests within the definition of what a marriage is.

Generically, by definition, I see marriage as the lifelong exclusive union of a male and female. If it meets this then success. If it has a few hiccups along the way but still prevails, then success. And if, the unon is blessed with children, all the better.

Sagamite:
You need to learn to dissociate my arguments about unfair, sexist divorce laws from my argument about the failed institution of marriage and then you will find it simpler and less confusing.

Hopefully, I have done that above.

Sagamite:
I have actually composed a write-up about the different kinds of adult relationship models we could have and that are available. But since NL went to the dogs, I have vowed never to waste my intellectual content on it, hence why I refuse to open the thread.

You think I would waste such on the cretins that now travail this forum?

When I find a platform to put it on, I will inform and invite you.

Copout;
1. Whilst different types are all good and fine, we specifically want one that is intrinsically superior to marriage
2. You rail here, show your solution here

Sagamite:
You have no church?
You no dey go shush?

No and nyet !


TV

TV01:

gospel [gos-puh l] noun
4. something regarded as true and implicitly believed:
to take his report for gospel.
5. a doctrine regarded as of prime importance:
political gospel.
6. glad tidings, especially concerning salvation and the kingdom of God as announced to the world by Christ.

Some readings/usages of the word gospel above. Timbuktou was roght to point out you poor comprehension skills. As for being religious. You are the most evangelical about your beliefs here. If you like miscomprehend that .

And how do my views meet any of the criteria outlined above? Not at all.

And you know it wasn't how exactly?

Deviation tactics. Explain to me how you know which concept of marriage God considers to be the right one.

Finally, you are getting there - please explain why a lack of self-control, restraint, and aspiration to a greater good, and the higher - often spiritual - values that humans are capable of is now "unnatural" - just change oyur moniker to "Tingles", that's the whole basis of your ish .

What greater good and which higher values?

Tim was wrong, it's not just comprehension . Who ridicules feelings? Men shoul dnot simply be led by them. Who said that humans ar enot emotional or that being happy is diametrically opposed to feeling good. Of course your happiness is more important than any religious doctrine - that is your religious dosctrine. And it's regardless of who gets hurt or the fallout. It's religion alright - just pagan.

Do you need to mention other monikers for support?

My happiness is not only more important than any religious doctrine, it is also more important than anyone else's. This is how selfish I am. No apologies.

Firstly, you have no way of knowing what every human being desires -and not in the order of priority. Or what each one defnes as good, or, it seems, an objective view of what good actually is.

Every living being desires to feel good. Find one that doesn't.

Like I said, run with your gospel of "feel good" at all cost and regardless of the outcome for others. Be evangfelical about your doctrine of promiscuity and indiscriminate childbirth being rewarded with marriage to a wealthy eligible man. I for one have no desire to gainsay you.

TV

Who told you that there is a cost attached to feeling good? And who told you that feeling good makes others miserable? If everyone finally learned how to take care of their own well-being, we would have nobody to worry about. It is so simple but instead we have plenty of people who depend on others for something they can't do for themselves but expect others to be capable of doing for them. And then we have divorce cases like this with people who think that others owe them anything.

TV01:

Ok to be precise - you rail against divorce laws and their application, considering them unfair, You also didain marriage as a failed institution.

For divorce, I say work on the relationship at the point of entry, not exit. Without marriage, there could be no divorce. Even where provision is made, it is no tthe preferred or optimal outcome. Work to change the laws if you care to, but in a feminine led worls, good luck with that.

As for marriage, I utterly reject the notion that it is either failed or antiquated. For those that get it and apprehend it, it is a delight. Ask me .

Now you sound less confused.

TV01:

So, you take back the "illiterates" comment then !

No, I don't.

I asked questions about how educated they were. Illiteracy is a general synonym for being educated.

TV01:

At an individual level, the dynamic and expectation may vary somewhat. Some men men think "as long as I have a son", some women, might be, "as long as he provides materially". It can be more, less,or none of those things. But the individual metric of success rests within the definition of what a marriage is.

Generically, by definition, I see marriage as the lifelong exclusive union of a male and female. If it meets this then success. If it has a few hiccups along the way but still prevails, then success. And if, the unon is blessed with children, all the better.

So, to summarise, your definition of marriage success metric is:

"When 2 people stay together exclusively till death do them part"?

Please try as best to modify if I am wrong when you reply.

TV01:

Copout;
1. Whilst different types are all good and fine, we specifically want one that is intrinsically superior to marriage
2. You rail here, show your solution here

You specifically want ONE?

This is where you are getting confused and not coming from an intellectual angle.

There are many people in the world with different desires, different aspirations, different beliefs, different values and different in so many other ways.

You can't satisfy this differences by saying you want to stick with ONE solution and think you have been optimal.

For each batch of people, they would have a superior and preferred model.

This is what I have repeatedly tried to educate your likes on. If you want to have a Christian-arranged marriage with your wife where you both agree that whatever you make in the union is seen as joint earning and you would not separate even if one of you is miserable because Jesu would throw a tantrum in heaven, by all means, do have it.

But that is not what Saga's batch would want. Saga needs to be happy. Saga needs to have the best option at all times. He does not do religion and does not give a hoot about Jesu or Mo or Kristna or whoever. He gives a shyt about making sense and making sensible decisions.

This is where you need to learn: The world does not need ONE and ONE should not be forced on everyone. What should be forced on everyone is ability to make choices.

TV01:

No and nyet !


TV

To be clear, you are saying you do not have your own shushi, but you do go to shushi?

Kimoni:


Choi! Oga, you dey vex o

All these big big obodo oyinbo grammar on top marriage

Lol! This story vex me walahi but I don calm a bit now.

baby124:

Yes he is not straightforward. I think most judges factor in the fact that these men have hidden away more than half their net worth in offshore accounts. They go through their history of income when determining these issues and one can easily figure out when some information is missing. So they decide to give the women half of what is visible. Women also are too emotional. They can like to give warning ahead of divorce. Then the man has time to rearrange himself. We need to look at where that man is now, since 2009. I am sure he is more than ok. He let her have what he wanted to give her. When you factor in lawyer fees from him and her, she won't be able to maintain the lifestyle for too long on what is left.

"Their" net worth!

How is it "their"?

That does not explain why a court should give her HIS net worth.

Even if he is more than okay, that is not excuse to say then everything is fine.

If a fraudster robs Dangote of $200m, I am sure he would still be okay. That is not a good explanation to say they robbery is justified and the robber deserved the loot.

Mindfulness:


Gospels are for religious people, I am not one of them.




And you know it how exactly? Let me guess, it is written in the Bible.




It is a logical outcome of marriage since the Christian concept of marriage is a social and religious construct that violates nature.
And your ridicule of feelings won't change the fact that every human being is an emotional being and not only rational. And if you feel that you have to sacrifice your good feelings for an institution, you are free to do so. I will pass. My happiness is more important than any religious doctrine. I am not purely rational, I am very emotional and I love it.

I use the fact that every human being desires to feel good. You use the Bible and call its content a fact, which is more disputable than my standing that it is natural for any being to want to feel good.

TV01, this is another education for you.

You can have your own choice but don't force it on others as the ONE!

Mindfulness:


And how do my views meet any of the criteria outlined above? Not at all.



Deviation tactics. Explain to me how you know which concept of marriage God considers to be the right one.



What greater good and which higher values?




Do you need to mention other monikers for support?

My happiness is not only more important than any religious doctrine, it is also more important than anyone else's. This is how selfish I am. No apologies.



Every living being desires to feel good. Find one that doesn't.




Who told you that there is a cost attached to feeling good? And who told you that feeling good makes others miserable? If everyone finally learned how to take care of their own well-being, we would have nobody to worry about. It is so simple but instead we have plenty of people who depend on others for something they can't do for themselves but expect others to be capable of doing for them. And then we have divorce cases like this with people who think that others owe them anything.

And this is the rubbish premise some Western nations base their laws on.

They say another person should be forced to maintian the life one person has been accustomed to. Not people should maintain the life they can afford to make for themselves based on their own efforts and self-development.

Moronic laws!

Thank you TV01, Sagamite needs special mentorship from you. I don't know what women have done to him in this life. Before you marry, make sure you marry the right person and for the right reasons. It will stop the possibility of divorce and loss of your wealth. If you stayed with that woman till you died, wouldn't she be entitled to all your wealth? So why are you angry that she is entitled to half when the marriage did not last the rest of time, possibly because of your own indiscretion. These laws definitely impose on the more wealthy person the duty to make the marriage work, because the judges take note of the fact that the more wealthy spouse can abuse a divorce process because they have the money.

masonkz:



Well, at least he's dropping all the hints he can...so y'all won't be surprised at that point



I'll be patiently waiting for him

I definitely would not be surprised. And I am sure many journalists would not be surprised.

They all know and respectfully and considerably stay off that subject with him.

After retirement, he would be joining Ricky Martin to dance on Gay float at some Pride March.

baby124:
Thank you TV01, Sagamite needs special mentorship from you. I don't know what women have done to him in this life. Before you marry, make sure you marry the right person and for the right reasons. It will stop the possibility of divorce and loss of your wealth. If you stayed with that woman till you died, wouldn't she be entitled to all your wealth? So why are you angry that she is entitled to half when the marriage did not last the rest of time, possibly because of your own indiscretion.

This still does not explain why she deserves his wealth.

Women have not done anything to me. I am just observant, enlightened, logical and direct enough to know most women are supremely selfish and I should always be ready to look out for number 1 when dealing with them .....................Moi!

Most are doing exactly fcking the same, while deceiving mugus that they are they most considerate.

Most women's perspective of equality and fairness is "Me, me, me, me, me".

I am sure you will be one of the first to show rage and throw a tantrum if an article comes on NL about some injustice on a woman. And then wonder why all men and women are not opposed to the injustice. But you eyes would be closed if it was being done to a man.

Typical woman: "Me, me, me, me, me"

I have no hate, I just make sure I handle ya'all to the best of my interest.

baby124:

These laws definitely impose on the more wealthy person the duty to make the marriage work, because the judges take note of the fact that the more wealthy spouse can abuse a divorce process because they have the money.

So in your world, it makes sense to create laws to force people to be in marriages?

Saudi Arabians are brilliant people then. Force those women to be in unwanted marriages and can't get out.

Mindfulness:
And how do my views meet any of the criteria outlined above? Not at all.

Maradona fun are re - Mindfullness you can dribble . So you do not reagrd your positions as true? or even believe them??

4. something regarded as true and implicitly believed:
to take his report for gospel.

Mindfulness:
Deviation tactics. Explain to me how you know which concept of marriage God considers to be the right one.

The Bible generally and the express word of Jesus specifically.The bibles position on Christian marriage is not even worth disputing. It opens and closes with marriage. It normalises - especially in the NT - the male/female, exclusive and permanent nature of marriage.

Mindfulness:
What greater good and which higher values?

Keep asking questions and accusing me of deviation ! Is there nothing that distinguishes us from animals? That aside, is not your position essentially about "your feelings" being the greater good and making them higher value.

Mindfulness:
Do you need to mention other monikers for support?

At all, but let them come and see your silky skills !

Mindfulness:
My happiness is not only more important than any religious doctrine, it is also more important than anyone else's. This is how selfish I am. No apologies.

No gainsaying

Mindfulness:
Every living being desires to feel good. Find one that doesn't.

Again, you don't have an objective measure for good, neither are you able to determine what is good for every individual, or prioritise different expressions of good from the same individual. I simply find your doctrine nebullous and shallow.

Mindfulness:
Who told you that there is a cost attached to feeling good? And who told you that feeling good makes others miserable? If everyone finally learned how to take care of their own well-being, we would have nobody to worry about. It is so simple but instead we have plenty of people who depend on others for something they can't do for themselves but expect others to be capable of doing for them. And then we have divorce cases like this with people who think that others owe them anything.

You contradict yourself thread to thread, post to post and literally sentence ot sentence ! And then try and hide it behind questions; why if there is never a cost attached do you term it selfish? Why if there is no cost - to someone, somewhere - do you counsel that a woman has a "right to act on her feelings regardless"?

You try and make it sound glossy, harmless and appealing at the outset, then deny there is naything systematic about it, but apply it to situations - which often leave you feeling uncomfortable.? It simply doesn't bear any kind of real scrutiny.


TV

baby124:
Thank you TV01, Sagamite needs special mentorship from you. I don't know what women have done to him in this life. Before you marry, make sure you marry the right person and for the right reasons. It will stop the possibility of divorce and loss of your wealth. If you stayed with that woman till you died, wouldn't she be entitled to all your wealth? So why are you angry that she is entitled to half when the marriage did not last the rest of time, possibly because of your own indiscretion. These laws definitely impose on the more wealthy person the duty to make the marriage work, because the judges take note of the fact that the more wealthy spouse can abuse a divorce process because they have the money.

I find the emboldened irrational and devoid of critical thinking even as it is draconian. Please forgive my ignorance but on what premise should anyone forfeit their self-earned wealth to another just because they are a signatory to a ceremonial piece of paper which doesn't worth any value, more than a paper. Why should anyone be ripped off their life acquisition unjustly coz they don't want to conserve a union anymore. A union which is obsolete and doesn't deserve a place in contemporary society.

Sagamite:


"Their" net worth!

How is it "their"?

That does not explain why a court should give her HIS net worth.

Even if he is more than okay, that is not excuse to say then everything is fine.

If a fraudster robs Dangote of $200m, I am sure he would still be okay. That is not a good explanation to say they robbery is justified and the robber deserved the loot.

You are psychologically trying to degrade and deride a wife's role in a man's life so you can justify your argument. It's like giving a dog a bad name to hang it. When you get married, all assets both bring into the marriage becomes a joint property. Whether man or woman. In the event of a separation it is assumed for equitable distribution that half of the joint property is appropriate. If you think she is not worth it, then the duty is on you to prove to the court that she is a robber and other outrageous names you have given wives in divorce situation. The fact is you do not know her reality and what she has endured in such a marriage, and it is not for you to say who is worth what. That is why we have courts. People go into marriage with the understanding that everything they own hence forth is subject to equal distribution in the event of a divorce. If you want to avoid that, protect yourself with a pre-nup. Goodluck getting a girl that will agree with putting up with you and getting zero when you wake up one morning and decide you have had enough of her.

baby124:

You are psychologically trying to degrade and deride a wife's role in a man's life so you can justify your argument. It's like giving a dog a bad name to hang it. When you get married, all assets both bring into the marriage becomes a joint property. Whether man or woman. In the event of a separation it is assumed for equitable distribution that half of the joint property is appropriate. If you think she is not worth it, then the duty is on you to prove to the court that she is a robber and other outrageous names you have given wives in divorce situation. The fact is you do not know her reality and what she has endured in such a marriage, and it is not for you to say who is worth what. That is why we have courts. People go into marriage with the understanding that everything they own hence forth is subject to equal distribution in the event of a divorce. If you want to avoid that, protect yourself with a pre-nup. Goodluck getting a girl that will agree with putting up with you and getting zero when you wake up one morning and decide you have had enough of her.

I am not psychologically trying to degrade and deride a wife's role in a man's life.

I am asking you to explain how she is worth what she is being given. What did she do to warrant it?

The floor is yours. Explain and big it up if you feel like it, then it can be deconstructed debated.

While at it, please explain with definition what you see as a wife's role and then valuate it.

Why should all assets brought home be joint property? Why does that make sense? Why should that be the sole proposition?

While you are at it, explain to me which of these two makes more sense and why:

https://www.nairaland.com/2789558/uk-divorce-court-awards-woman/1#40849629

I don't know her but I can deduce from what I know: the case was judged using the moronic laws of the West and came out with a moronic outcome.

Where did I say a girl would get zero? Have you been reading this thread or you are just getting emotional due to your feminine irrationality and pure selfishness?

Sagamite:
Now you sound less confused.

I may have been guilty of assuming, but then we all can be.

Sagamite:
No, I don't.
I asked questions about how educated they were. Illiteracy is a general synonym for being educated.

Evidence of the state of their culture then is both documented and extant. As is it's flourishing sionce then. The term "education" is at best subjective. And if you mean "advanced", I've touched on that.

Sagamite:
So, to summarise, your definition of marriage success metric is:

"When 2 people stay together exclusively till death do them part"?

Please try as best to modify if I am wrong when you reply.

No need to summarise - take it as written in the first instance

Sagamite:

You specifically want ONE?

This is where you are getting confused and not coming from an intellectual angle.

There are many people in the world with different desires, different aspirations, different beliefs, different values and different in so many other ways.

You can't satisfy this differences by saying you want to stick with ONE solution and think you have been optimal.

For each batch of people, they would have a superior and preferred model.

This is what I have repeatedly tried to educate your likes on. If you want to have a Christian-arranged marriage with your wife where you both agree that whatever you make in the union is seen as joint earning and you would not separate even if one of you is miserable because Jesu would throw a tantrum in heaven, by all means, do have it.

But that is not what Saga's batch would want. Saga needs to be happy. Saga needs to have the best option at all times. He does not do religion and does not give a hoot about Jesu or Mo or Kristna or whoever. He gives a shyt about making sense and making sensible decisions.

This is where you need to learn: The world does not need ONE and ONE should not be forced on everyone. What should be forced on everyone is ability to make choices.

It is your confusion that is glaring and dude, you are not educating anyone, far from it;

1. It is marriage you so pointedly disdain. Show a model that gives society, communities, families, the 2 individuals, and any offspring, the same or superior benefits to marriage - we are waiting

2. In as much as there are different desires, needs and requirements, no one has said that you cannot structure your relationships as you see fit. I've said that repeatedly here. Marriage is what it is. You are the one that disdains it, but is unable to improve on it.

3. Free-form structuring of relationships is fine! But it does not mean every relationship qualifies as a marriage. Ditto, it does no tmena everyone gets to structure their relationship as they like and demand it be called marriage. It's that simple

Your befuddlement in 3 easy steps .

Sagamite:
To be clear, you are saying you do not have your own shushi, but you do go to shushi?

I don't think I could have been clearer; I don't have/run/own a church. I don't belong to/regularly attend/identify with a denomination.


TV

ronald4lif:


I find the emboldened irrational and devoid of critical thinking even as it is draconian. Please forgive my ignorance but on what premise should anyone forfeit their self-earned wealth to another just because they are a signatory to a ceremonial piece of paper which doesn't worth any value, more than a paper. Why should anyone be ripped off their life acquisition unjustly coz they don't want to conserve a union anymore. A union which is obsolete and doesn't deserve a place in contemporary society.

She believes men should be forced to stay in marriages and if they refuse to stay, then the law should fine them with an obscene part of their wealth.

And this is coming from some of those tellling you that it is a man benefiting from marriage.

That utility "men are benefiting from" somehow does not make men want to stay and they implicitly want to have laws that force men to stay as a protection for them (the charity givers).

Sagamite:


TV01, this is another education for you.

You can have your own choice but don't force it on others as the ONE!

Au contraire - I know I am free to do as I choose, and fully acknowledge others are free todo exactly that a s well. And again, I've said that repeatedly on this thread.

This is a discussion of ideas. You disdain the Christian ideal of marriage, you've failed to demonstrate a superior one. Mindfullness just appears to be in general denial, but in search of tingles

Defend your stated position, don't mis-ascribe views to me as an out .

Oya


TV

Bastard? A fanciful term cloned to further promote and enforce the marital institution. A conspiracy to promulgate and make mankind become more apprehensive about 'unceremoniously conceived' kids thereby signing a piece of paper, termed marriage cert. Doesn't fly anymore in today's world, people are continually being awaken to the falsehood called marriage and the various scheme designed to cajole them to take a leap.

If I have a child and own up to his/her responsibility and their welfare doesn't make them a bastard. The society or anyone can label them what they want but doesn't make any difference. I don't have to conform to society propagated Abrahamic necromantic doctrines which is illusory.

Sagamite:


I am not psychologically trying to degrade and deride a wife's role in a man's life.

I am asking you to explain how she is worth what she is being given. What did she do to warrant it?

The floor is yours. Explain and big it up if you feel like it, then it can be deconstructed debated.

While at it, please explain with definition what you see as a wife's role and then valuate it.

Why should all assets brought home be joint property? Why does that make sense? Why should that be the sole proposition?

While you are at it, explain to me which of these two makes more sense and why:

https://www.nairaland.com/2789558/uk-divorce-court-awards-woman/1#40849629

I don't know her but I can deduce from what I know: the case was judged using the moronic laws of the West and came out with a moronic outcome.

Where did I say a girl would get zero? Have you been reading this thread or you are just getting emotional due to your feminine irrationality and pure selfishness?

Well I am glad we agree the woman is entitled to something. But the fact is marriage is seen as a partnership. All gains and losses, including property are shared equally except it has been expressly stated on going into such partnerships that there are limitations on what should be shared in the case of a dissolution. So I put it to you to tell me why the man shouldn't pay his half as agreed? Am sure both of them' estate was considered in the decision. I am busy at the moment so can't give a robust reply. However left to your logic, most men will argue and fight that the wife deserves nothing, if the courts leave such issues open to interpretation and value. How do you value a spouses contribution in a marriage? It is simply impossible. This is why a marital Union is a PARTNERSHIP!!!

TV01:

I may have been guilty of assuming, but then we all can be.

Respect!

{Salutes}

I like it when someone does not try to play "I no go carry last".

TV01:

Evidence of the state of their culture then is both documented and extant. As is it's flourishing sionce then. The term "education" is at best subjective. And if you mean "advanced", I've touched on that.

Would you give you child the education they have then?

Would you even see it as sufficient to live as an educated person.

Mate, lets be frank. They wer uneducated just like our ancestors were uneducated before the Whiteman came.

People teaching you or training you in something is not necessarily an education. Fck it, many Nigerian kids today are not even getting an education even though they go to classes for 6 years.

Nigga, let me even give you a live example. When the Chibok girls were kidnapped, it was during the SSCE exam period. Some escaped. When the BBC was interviewing these girls, NONE I can recall, could do an interview in English. They were using translators.

And these were kids about to do exams that would have been administered in English.

So please, let us know what education is based on the standards that is right.

The writers of the Bible and Quran are illiterates. Medieval ones! No different from those you will find in the villages of Ijebuland bar Sagamu.

TV01:

No need to summarise - take it as written in the first instance

Well, then you metric is wrong.

Because people stay together till they die does not mean a marriage was successful. Even those women that face domestic violence stay exclusively with their tormentor till they die or he kills them. That is not a successful marriage as your metric would suggest.

TV01:

It is your confusion that is glaring and dude, you are not educating anyone, far from it;

1. It is marriage you so pointedly disdain. Show a model that gives society, communities, families, the 2 individuals, and any offspring, the same or superior benefits to marriage - we are waiting

2. In as much as there are different desires, needs and requirements, no one has said that you cannot structure your relationships as you see fit. I've said that repeatedly here. Marriage is what it is. You are the one that disdains it, but is unable to improve on it.

3. Free-form structuring of relationships is fine! But it does not mean every relationship qualifies as a marriage. Ditto, it does no tmena everyone gets to structure their relationship as they like and demand it be called marriage. It's that simple

Your befuddlement in 3 easy steps .

You see, you are sounding confused again.

Why must a marriage be between 2 individuals?

Who the hell are you to tell these 2 individuals to be exclusive if they both want to be swingers?

TV01:

I don't think I could have been clearer; I don't have/run/own a church. I don't belong to/regularly attend/identify with a denomination.


TV

You don't even go to church regularly?

Fck me! I never imagined that.

TV01, you are going to HELL FIRE o.

baby124:

Well I am glad we agree the woman is entitled to something. But the fact is marriage is seen as a partnership. All gains and losses, including property are shared equally except it has been expressly stated on going into such partnerships that there are limitations on what should be shared in the case of a dissolution. So I put it to you to tell me why the man shouldn't pay his half as agreed? Am sure both of them' estate was considered in the decision. I am busy at the moment so can't give a robust reply. However left to your logic, most men will argue and fight that the wife deserves nothing, if the courts leave such issues open to interpretation and value. How do you value a spouses contribution in a marriage? It is simply impossible. This is why a marital Union is a PARTNERSHIP!!!

Nonsense!

Even in partnerships, partners get what they put in.

For example, not all PwC partners get the same pay. There is a valuation process of the worth of each partner and his/her contribution. Some are paid £400K a year, others are paid £2.8m a year.

Even in cases where people go into businesses as partners without signing an understanding, if there is a dispute in future that ends up in court, no sane judge would say it must be split 50/50, he would ask for evidence of contribution and apportion based on it.

Calling something a "partnership" does not justify equal split.

That argument fails!

You want to try again with another one?

baby124:

You are psychologically trying to degrade and deride a wife's role in a man's life so you can justify your argument. It's like giving a dog a bad name to hang it.

..
No one is degrading anything, we are simply saying "a wife's role does not entitle her to 50% of the man's wealth, unless she buys off 50% of his equity"... whatever happened to husbands role? Are you saying a wife's role is more important? If a husband has any role at all (cos ur starting to sound as if the wife is the only investor in the marriage), why then should half his asset be given to the wife? If it's discovered the husband actually played a bigger role and she's worth a 100 dollars while the husband is worth a million, does the husband receive 50 out of her 100 since he played a bigger role?

When you get married, all assets both bring into the marriage becomes a joint property. Whether man or woman. In the event of a separation it is assumed for equitable distribution that half of the joint property is appropriate.

Hold up, what joint property are you referring to, does the wife automatically become a shareholder in the husbands company as soon as she is married? Shareholder by virtue of marriage So you are saying that if the wife owns a beauty salon which she still operates and the husband owns an automobile company, in the event of a divorce, she should leave with her salon as well as about a quarter of the automobile company to balance it up since all properties become joint as soon as the court/priest says "you may now kiss your bride"? How does that sound?
look, even in business, a shareholder only receives the monetary equivalent of his share if business closes down, if his share is 20%, he doesn't get 50 becos they were in business together..

If you think she is not worth it, then the duty is on you to prove to the court that she is a robber and other outrageous names you have given wives in divorce situation. The fact is you do not know her reality and what she has endured in such a marriage, and it is not for you to say who is worth what

Any wife that demands for 50% of her husbands asset is simply a thief, I aint mincing words, what wives realities are we talking about, was she better off before the marriage? Why should she demand to be better off than she was or would ever be were she still single, what about the man's realities, do you think he got rich by just getting married?

That is why we have courts. People go into marriage with the understanding that everything they own hence forth is subject to equal distribution in the event of a divorce. If you want to avoid that, protect yourself with a pre-nup.

Nope, people underestimate the greed of their partners before getting married because they were swimming in love.... They don't even anticipate they would get divorced in the first place... Blame it on blind love... I agree though, people should start getting pre-nups, although I anticipate it would bring down the marriage rate cos there would be no incentives for most women...

Goodluck getting a girl that will agree with putting up with you and getting zero when you wake up one morning and decide you have had enough of her.

Amen

Sagamite:


She believes men should be forced to stay in marriages and if they refuse to stay, then the law should fine them with an obscene part of their wealth.

And this is coming from some of those tellling you that it is a man benefiting from marriage.

That utility "men are benefiting from" somehow does not make men want to stay and they implicitly want to have laws that force men to stay as a protection for them (the charity givers).

Quite so. Which makes it draconian and autocratic and reaps one of their right to choices/decisions. Do as I say or get penalised, stay put in the marriage no matter how unhappy you are (that's if there's any such thing as a happy marriage) or get the sharp end of the rod. Very undemocratic and an affront to right to freewill.

Marriage doesn't benefit anyone, not more than cohab couple who didn't perform the ceremonial signing of sheets. It's all a facade and a shadowy display of pretense fuelled by religion.

Sagamite:


Respect!

{Salutes}

I like it when someone does not try to play "I no go carry last".

Happy to carry last if I'm hearing new and good stuff

Sagamite:

Would you give you child the education they have then?

Would you even see it as sufficient to live as an educated person.

Mate, lets be frank. They wer uneducated just like our ancestors were uneducated before the Whiteman came.

People teaching you or training you in something is not necessarily an education. Fck it, many Nigerian kids today are not even getting an education even though they go to classes for 6 years.

Nigga, let me even give you a live example. When the Chibok girls were kidnapped, it was during the SSCE exam period. Some escaped. When the BBC was interviewing these girls, NONE I can recall, could do an interview in English. They were using translators.

And these were kids about to do exams that would have been administered in English.

So please, let us know what education is based on the standards that is right.

The writers of the Bible and Quran are illiterates. Medieval ones! No different from those you will find in the villages of Ijebuland bar Sagamu.

Literacy is the ability to read and write - agreed. Education is acquiring the lifeskills to function normally in the society, and at the time in which one lives. Knowledge is altogether different. There are vast differentials between people in a society at any point in time.

They were literate and educated for their time, as we are for ours, And our successors of 10, 20 or how ever many generations time turning around and calling us ignorant would be as wrong as what you are doing now. Not least because these things are successive.

The people then had the brains to do exactly what we do now and would if they had the same benefit of hindsight that we have. There is a pernicious myth, that present day men are somehow more intelligent, than our ancestors. Nope!

Sagamite:

Well, then you metric is wrong.

Because people stay together till they die does not mean a marriage was successful. Even those women that face domestic violence stay exclusively with their tormentor till they die or he kills them. That is not a successful marriage as your metric would suggest.

Firstly I gave allowance for hiccups. Secondly, of all domestic relationships, domestic violence is least prevalent in marriage. Thirdly, it is not always extreme or dangerous; in fact many "relationship types" experience a degree of low level of conflict. Fourthly, if a "spouse" dies at the hads of their spouse, that would not be considered successful by my metric.

Sagamite:
You see, you are sounding confused again.

Why must a marriage be between 2 individuals?

Who the hell are you to tell these 2 individuals to be exclusive if they both want to be swingers? .

That is marriage - biblical marriage - as I understand and champion it. It's not for anyone else, and certainly not for those who subscribe to different relationship types. It's close to the one under discussion, and even those forms of marriage that differ from mine are always enacted between two people no?

Sagamite:



You don't even go to church regularly?

Fck me! I never imagined that.

TV01, you are going to HELL FIRE o.

I'm happy to be labelled a Christian as I'm a bible believer and a disciple of Christ. Assume nothing else !

There is no fear of hell-fire for believers. The gift of god is eternal life. It's that, or one perishes - completely ceases to exist - after paying for their sinful deeds, which may be quite heated .

Now please, this relationship model that is better than marriage - we are waiting

TV

ronald4lif:


Quite so. Which makes it draconian and autocratic and reaps one of their right to choices/decisions. Do as I say or get penalised, stay put in the marriage no matter how unhappy you are (that's if there's any such thing as a happy marriage) or get the sharp end of the rod. Very undemocratic and an affront to right to freewill.

Marriage doesn't benefit anyone, not more than cohab couple who didn't perform the ceremonial signing of sheets. It's all a facade and a shadowy display of pretense fuelled by religion.

Get with the programme.

To many women, feminists and their lapdog cretinous "real men": It is awful if you do all these things you say to a woman, but it is okay if done to a man.

That is evidence of "civilisation" and "equality".

Mate, alot of women support this because they are fcking terrified they would be left by their men after their looks fade. So they are happy with a law that would force men to stay with them even if the law is senseless and discriminatory. It is all part of their selfishness.

Sagamite:


Get with the programme.

To many women, feminists and their lapdog cretinous "real men": It is awful if you do all these things you say to a woman, but it is okay if done to a man.

That is evidence of "civilisation" and "equality".

Mate, alot of women support this because they are fcking terrified they would be left by their men after their looks fade. So they are happy with a law that would force men to stay with them even if the law is senseless and discriminatory. It is all part of their selfishness.

Well, safe to say the best approach is never to commit oneself to the union or if one must there should be a pre-nup arrangement as conflicting issues that could lead to the marriage breakdown is inevitable. It depends on one's level of tolerance, endurance and the quest to appease the society to view them as one 'happy' couple.

But I can't live and endure life when I've a better option, to be free, independent, happy and unaccountable to anyone. Makes no sense.