TV01:

The argument outlined by Stilly and fully supported by TV is also backed up by numerous longitudinal studies on families, their dysfunctions and the consequent social pathologies.

Whatever you like to think, the truth is that marriage only makes sense with regard to children. You yourselves argue that very thing when you can't see why people should be able to enter and exit relationships at will.

And in lieu of children you are in a sense correct. Why would anyone want the government to involve itself in their intimate affairs?

The only reason they get involved is because they see the long-term benefit of shoring up and privileging marriage. There are a whole host of benefits and reasons why they do this. Any relationship that is not marriage can be regulated by a legal agreement the couple agree on.

The arguments Stilly and I make, are not to prohibit change per se, but to challenge if the change is based on good and brings good outcomes.

And the truth is, all the change I see presented is based on "selfish adult desire", as opposed to the best long term interests of vulnerable children. And the outcomes are not foreseeable good in the long-term.

All you have to do is show otherwise. And to be frank, talk of personal happiness and pursuing dreams sounds base and trite. Those things could be pursued without endangering our collective future.


Think broader, deeper, and longer-term. As Stilly says, it's not about any individual. Just as a contract without sanctions for breach is absurd, marriage that is bespoke to each couple is meaningless and pointless.


No, your position is the height of unthinking selfishness.


TV

I am not in the mood for long epistles.

Simply answer the question how treating your 'erring' spouse like a criminal will make a family more functional instead of beating around the bush.

I am sure the family will be very harmonious when the husband loses some money or spends some weeks in jail.

crackhaus:

Interesting...so in a country that prides itself on being the most free and liberal on the entire planet, someone can actually be jailed for choosing to cheat on their spouse but another man gets recognition for choosing to fall in love, have sex, and marry a fellow man? Lmao...

And you're honestly telling me that you don't see anything wrong in a system like this:
Homosexuality √
Polygamy ×
Infidelity ×
Feminism √
Animal rights √
Transgender √

Let me guess, as long as it's legal/illegal in the USA it should be legal/illegal in Nigeria because they always know what they're doing.

On a more serious note though,
Are those laws even implemented?
Like people go to jail for committing adultery? Honest questions..

Most people in the US are not even privy to these laws.
Also the premise is not that since it is applicable in the US, it should now be enforced in Nigeria. Absolutely not. My argument is independent of the United States. I highlighted the US because these suggestions are not new nor groundbreaking. Now Nigeria boasts of being highly religious, and champion marriage. Nigerians arrive at most conclusions and decisions through religion and culture. Now the two religious entities (christian/muslim) frown against adultery. What better way to curb adultery than sanctioning it? There are little protections given to spouses during the marriage. Why do we have to focus on outside the marriage (divorce) for the disenfranchised spouse to be protected?

crackhaus:

Answer:
By living in a fool's paradise and deceiving one's self in broad summer daylight.

Mindfulness:

Indeed.

Fine. The defence rests We will no longer defend marriage as we have outlined it. Now demonstrate that you have the strength of your convictions and clear logic for your views.

Please tell us, how, in the absence of marriage as we've outlined, how best;

1. society goes about optimising the long-term raising of well-adjusted, healthy and productive citizens
2. contains the feral...
3. particularly keen ...

I actually have 3 questions at the very least, but so as not to conflate things, or drag ourselves all over the shop, please start with the 1.

I'm throwing this open to all. I'm even willing to face sanctions if you present logical, clear, qualitative and compelling positions.


TV

TV01:




Fine. The defence rests We will no longer defend marriage as we have outlined it. Now demonstrate that you have the strength of your convictions and clear logic for your views.

Please tell us, how, in the absence of marriage as we've outlined, how best;

1. society goes about optimising the long-term raising of well-adjusted, healthy and productive citizens
2. contains the feral...
3. particularly keen ...

I actually have 3 questions at the very least, but so as not to conflate things, or drag ourselves all over the shop, please start with the 1.

I'm throwing this open to all. I'm even willing to facer sanctions if you present logical, clear, qualitative and compelling positions.


TV

Since Crackhaus is very good at presenting his points - which I fully support in the context of this thread - in a concise but clear way, I will let him go first and add my two cents later.

crackhaus:

Ohhh I see, so it's only people that want to continue the marriage that will be jailed or made to pay fines? Lol..

This is getting funnier by the minute, and I hope you're not making all this up..

So I cheat on my wife and then I'm told to either divorce or continue with the marriage on the account that I will go to jail or pay a fine,... why the hell would anyone even want to continue that marriage?

It will reduce the tendency of people making a damn mockery of the marriage institution.
A marriage where there is cheating, adultery, domestic violence is not a marriage, but a potential for unleashing dysfunction into the society. Please the people should either pay a fine, divorce or preferable do not get married.
Only genuine people should have the honor of being married. It will bring dignity to the word marriage in the long run.

I mean people can cohabit, divorce, and not get married at all. These are all the other options. What is the problem?

In fact let me add again, if you want to get married a second time, you must pay a damn fine. What better ways for the Nigerian government to make money than through the fickleness of human beings.

Stillfire:


Most people in the US are not even privy to these laws.
Also the premise is not that since it is applicable in the US, it should now be enforced in Nigeria. Absolutely not. My argument is independent of the United States. I highlighted the US because these suggestions are not new nor groundbreaking. Now Nigeria boasts of being highly religious, and champion marriage. Nigerians arrive at most conclusions and decisions through religion and culture. Now the two religious entities (christian/muslim) frown against adultery. What better way to curb adultery than sanctioning it? There are little protections given to spouses during the marriage. Why do we have to focus on outside the marriage (divorce) for the disenfranchised spouse to be protected?

This is because the person who was cheated on is not disenfranchised until the marriage is dissolved and that person becomes unable to move on smoothly (financially) with his/her life - this is what the law seeks to protect.

While in the marriage however, you can't say that because someone was cheated on, then he/she has been disenfranchised.
No one has died from disappointment and heartbreak...no 'normal person' at least.

Mindfulness:


Since Crackhaus is very good at presenting his points - which I fully support in the context of this thread - in a concise but clear way, I will let him go first and add my two cents later.

TV

TV01:





TV

But don't try to divert his attention from the punishment of adultery to unfair divorce laws in the UK. I am watching you in 3D.

crackhaus:

Ohhh I see, so it's only people that want to continue the marriage that will be jailed or made to pay fines? Lol..

This is getting funnier by the minute, and I hope you're not making all this up..

So I cheat on my wife and then I'm told to either divorce or continue with the marriage on the account that I will go to jail or pay a fine,... why the hell would anyone even want to continue that marriage?

Jail time would be a walk in the park compared to a lifetime of being with someone you don't want to be with. Me thinks many would rather do time and get on with their lives after.
Marriage in that sort of scenario is akin to a life sentence.

crackhaus:
This is because the person who was cheated on is not disenfranchised until the marriage is dissolved and that person becomes unable to move on smoothly (financially) with his/her life - this is what the law seeks to protect.

So if vows of life-long fidelity are taken by the couple, and one breaks that vow, you would view that as 1 party having done no wrong, and the other having suffered no loss?

crackhaus:

While in the marriage however, you can't say that because someone was cheated on, then he/she has been disenfranchised.
No one has died from disappointment and heartbreak...no 'normal person' at least.

So in the breaking of an agreement, unless death ensues, there has been no breach

This will be over before my journey home.




TV

TV01:




Fine. The defence rests We will no longer defend marriage as we have outlined it. Now demonstrate that you have the strength of your convictions and clear logic for your views.

Please tell us, how, in the absence of marriage as we've outlined, how best;

1. society goes about optimising the long-term raising of well-adjusted, healthy and productive citizens
2. contains the feral...
3. particularly keen ...

I actually have 3 questions at the very least, but so as not to conflate things, or drag ourselves all over the shop, please start with the 1.

I'm throwing this open to all. I'm even willing to facer sanctions if you present logical, clear, qualitative and compelling positions.


TV

Lol, you TV01 have always been an ardent proponent of the sanctitiy of marriage as a lifetime commitment...but this isn't how every body will see it.

I, like you, am a believer in 'till death do us part', but what you're implying by question number 1 is that the only way society can have well-adjusted, healthy, and productive citizens is ONLY by policing and implementing the family unit in its most traditional form, ergo "man, woman, children, and everyone lives happily ever after - this here is exactly why sanctions on infidelity won't work, because there will be no happily ever after in a marriage that is held together not because of genuine love but only because someone wants to avoid sanction (jail time/fines).

At the end, you still end up raising unhappy and unproductive citizens who are maintaining their family unit only because they want to avoid jail.
People can't be forced to keep loving and staying with someone they would rather not be with.

I have not argued for the unimportance or worthlessness of marriage, my argument is that one can't be forced to remain in it.
Raising productive citizens is not tied to marriage.

TV01:

So if vows of life-long fidelity are taken by the couple, and one breaks that vow, you would view that as 1 party having done no wrong, and the other having suffered no loss?

I didn't imply this.

I said the person who was cheated on is not disenfranchised until he/she is left standing in the cold with no money or means to move on with his/her life should there be divorce.

Of course the one cheating did wrong, and the one cheated on is disappointed.
Isn't this a part of life? Getting disappointed and making wrong choices?

So in the breaking of an agreement, unless death ensues, there has been no breach

This will be over before my journey home.




TV

Follow my conversation with stilfire.

She's of the opinion that people are protected in divorce, why shouldn't they be protected in marriage.
And my response is, what exactly should they be protected from? Someone else's feelings that can change?

That someone got cheated on is just a breach of trust, not a breach in financial agreement neither is it a death sentence.

And in that case, how is the law supposed to accommodate a fleeting feeling such as trust or love?
One can't be made/forced to trust and love someone else for the rest of their life.

crackhaus:

Lol, you TV01 have always been an ardent proponent of the sanctitiy of marriage as a lifetime commitment...but this isn't how every body will see it.

I, like you, am a believer in 'till death do us part', but what you're implying by question number 1 is that the only way society can have well-adjusted, healthy, and productive citizens is ONLY by policing and implementing the family unit in its most traditional form, ergo "man, woman, children, and everyone lives happily ever after - this here is exactly why sanctions on infidelity won't work, because there will be no happily ever after in a marriage that is held together not because of genuine love but only because someone wants to avoid sanction (jail time/fines).

At the end, you still end up raising unhappy and unproductive citizens who are maintaining their family unit only because they want to avoid jail.
People can't be forced to keep loving and staying with someone they would rather not be with.

I have not argued for the unimportance or worthlessness of marriage, my argument is that one can't be forced to remain in it.
Raising productive citizens is not tied to marriage.

I know you wouldn't disappoint.
Exactly my thoughts TV01, just that I would have written an essay ten times longer.

Besides there are plenty of families who have kids with behavioral problems. I would even dare and say that MOST people need some check -up from the neck up even though or maybe because they grew up with two parents under one roof?

Moreover, if marriage's first and foremost function is to raise healthy individuals, then marriage does really not have to be 'till death do us part' but rather 'till the kids leave the nest'.

Hmmmm.. interesting that you are pro-marriage

Stillfire:


Naa it does not mean that much to me. Just having a discussion on a theoretical basis.
Now, my moralistic opinion is that cheaters in marriage should be fined and policed by the government and a considerable amount given to the partner that was cheated on. In the advent of lack of income to pay the government, the cheater goes to jail for a month or 2 or 3. It will not solve the cheating problem, but it would regulate it and help bring some sanity into the institution. The law is too focused on 'divorce'. Laws need to be introduced to protect and preserve the marriage institution and the partners involved in the institution. You will still have the right to leave the institution, but you will be fined for it. In Nigeria, where conclusions are analyzed and arrived at through religion, I don't see how most people would have a problem with this. This will enable only sincere people to get into that institution. The only exception would be if both parties prior to the marriage agree to have an open marriage. Also there will be the freedom of not getting married at all.

Stillfire

I like/love you yesterday, I dont like or love you today. Why should I be punished for my feelings?

Would it be better to suppress my feelings and just continue in it even if I am sad everyday?

raumdeuter:
Stillfire

I like/love you yesterday, I dont like or love you today. Why should I be punished for my feelings?

Would it be better to suppress my feelings and just continue in it even if I am sad everyday?

Yes, people get married for selfish reasons - not that there is anything wrong with it.

They should take the following vows:
I will love you as long as you do what pleases me, even if it doesn't please you any longer - else I will make your life a living hell.

Stillfire:


It will reduce the tendency of people making a damn mockery of the marriage institution.
A marriage where there is cheating, adultery, domestic violence is not a marriage, but a potential for unleashing dysfunction into the society. Please the people should either pay a fine, divorce or preferable do not get married.
Only genuine people should have the honor of being married. It will bring dignity to the word marriage in the long run.

I mean people can cohabit, divorce, and not get married at all. These are all the other options. What is the problem?

In fact let me add again, if you want to get married a second time, you must pay a damn fine. What better ways for the Nigerian government to make money than through the fickleness of human beings.

The fickleness of human beings with respect to who they choose to love and have sex with cannot be policed and judged by man-made laws since no one is physically hurt, isn't this the American way?

A marriage where there is 'cheating and adultery' is already on its way to being dissolved should it be so desired, which is why divorce laws take over thence to make sure no one is left disenfranchised coming out of it.

Only God has sole authority in penalizing an adulterer for breaking his/her vows.
Civil law and government cannot stop people from committing adultery entirely any more than it can stop people from breathing oxygen.

What it can do is tell an adulterer "well now that you've done it, you or your spouse may get a divorce and we will see to it that the innocent party gets treated fairly".

TV01:

Funnily enough, in 90% of cases the wife gets the kids. In the other ten, it's often another - grandparents etc. - so fathers rarely get custody. It's considered in the childs best interest to be with their mother, although it's a confusing ideology, as apparently women add nothing of distinct value and 2 men could do the job just as well .


TV

hahaha
the modern liberal age

really interesting views

so what is family to u

Stillfire:


Masculinist ko, Michael Jackson ni. I would rather use the phrase more conservative than liberal when it comes to morality. As of now, marriage/family is the bedrock of any society. A dysfunction in marriage, translates into the larger society and may affect ME in the process, when the sons and daughters of these dysfunction start manifesting. So anything to penalize these dysfunctional people is fine by me.

shaybebaby:

Jail time would be a walk in the park compared to a lifetime of being with someone you don't want to be with. Me thinks many would rather do time and get on with their lives after.
Marriage in that sort of scenario is akin to a life sentence.

I think you may have got it mixed up.

You cheat, these are your options going by stilfire's idealism:

a.) You file for divorce and let the usual spousal and child support settlements take effect. OR
b.) You stay married but get a short jail sentence and pay a fine.


What sayest thee?

pickabeau1:


hahaha
the modern liberal age

In the UK, which is not the entire West and not the rest of the world.

In some European countries the parents receive shared custody and the child lives 1/2 weeks with the father and 1/2 weeks with the mother.
They take turns.

I have just witnessed a case, in which the father received custody because the mother wanted to move away with the child - in fact she did but the authorities didn't let her and she had to return the child.

Mindfulness:


Yes, people get married for selfish reasons - not that there is anything wrong with it.

They should take the following vows:
I will love you as long as you do what pleases me, even if it doesn't please you any longer - else I will make your life a living hell.

Even if you married for genuine reasons, People fall out of love regularly. Should they be punished for it?

if youlike blue color and suddenly yousee you dont like blue again but red, should you be punished for it

raumdeuter:


Even if you married for genuine reasons, People fall out of love regularly. Should they be punished for it?

if youlike blue color and suddenly yousee you dont like blue again but red, should you be punished for it

Well, my answer is NO!

However, TV claims that love is an action that you choose and not an emotion and even if it was an emotion, people should not marry based on emotions.

What ya say?

Mindfulness:


I know you wouldn't disappoint.
Exactly my thoughts TV01, just that I would have written an essay ten times longer.

Besides there are plenty of families who have kids with behavioral problems. I would even dare and say that MOST people need some check -up from the neck up even though or maybe because they grew up with two parents under one roof?

Moreover, if marriage's first and foremost function is to raise healthy individuals, then marriage does really not have to be 'till death do us part' but rather 'till the kids leave the nest'.

Abi, stay for the kids till they're old enough to understand that daddy and mommy are only human and can fall out of love so there's no need for them to keep acting like it's all good.

TV01, you agree?

crackhaus:

Abi, stay for the kids till they're old enough to understand that daddy and mommy are only human and can fall out of love so there's no need for them to keep acting like it's all good.

TV01, you agree?

That is if they are able to act as if all was good.
I have seen homes that resemble a war zone.
I am not sure how healthy individuals are supposed to come out of such.

crackhaus:

Lol, you TV01 have always been an ardent proponent of the sanctitiy of marriage as a lifetime commitment...but this isn't how every body will see it.

I, like you, am a believer in 'till death do us part', but what you're implying by question number 1 is that the only way society can have well-adjusted, healthy, and productive citizens is ONLY by policing and implementing the family unit in its most traditional form, ergo "man, woman, children, and everyone lives happily ever after - this here is exactly why sanctions on infidelity won't work, because there will be no happily ever after in a marriage that is held together not because of genuine love but only because someone wants to avoid sanction (jail time/fines).

At the end, you still end up raising unhappy and unproductive citizens who are maintaining their family unit only because they want to avoid jail.
People can't be forced to keep loving and staying with someone they would rather not be with.

I have not argued for the unimportance or worthlessness of marriage, my argument is that one can't be forced to remain in it.
Raising productive citizens is not tied to marriage.

I am not implying anything, the question was clear - in lieu of marriage how does society go about optimising the long-term raising of well-adjusted, healthy and productive citizens.

Just a concise treatise please. Answer the question without recourse to marriage. Or as my day used to say when he was grilling me about my misdemeanors "tell me what happened, and don't mention anyone elses name" .

Like I said, no problem with anyone disdaining or eschewing marriage, but please tell us what you would replace it with. This point first. Surely it can't be that hard .


TV

TV01:

I am not implying anything, the question was clear - in lieu of marriage how does society go about optimising the long-term raising of well-adjusted, healthy and productive citizens.

Just a concise treatise please. Answer the question without recourse to marriage. Or as my day used to say when he was grilling me about my misdemeanors "tell me what happened, and don't mention anyone elses name" .

Like I said, no problem with anyone disdaining or eschewing marriage, but please tell us what you would replace it with. This point first. Surely it can't be that hard .


TV

How about castrating some individuals that we don't regard as fit to raise well-adjusted, healthy, productive individuals?
And how about installing cameras in our homes so that we can make sure that children are actually raised and not parked in front of the TV for hours?
And how about implanting chips under the skin of married people so that their spouses can monitor where they go and for how long?

raumdeuter:
Stillfire

I like/love you yesterday, I dont like or love you today. Why should I be punished for my feelings?

Would it be better to suppress my feelings and just continue in it even if I am sad everyday?

Absolutely, you are free to love whomsoever you please, for as long or as short and, as much or as little as you like, and in whatsoever manner you choose.

And indeed, your love, be that an emotion or an action, as long as it remains, will not be prompted, validated or enhanced by marriage, so how would you be punished if your love diminishes or ceases, or simply chooses to perch elsewhere?


TV

Mindfulness:



How about castrating some individuals that we don't regard as fit to raise well-adjusted, healthy, productive individuals?
And how about installing cameras in our homes so that we can make sure that children are actually raised and not parked in front of the TV for hours?
And how about implanting chips under the skin of married people so that their spouses can monitor where they go and for how long?

That is, I am utterly bereft of answers to a simple question, so I am going to dribble around aimlessly and fight as one who beats the air. Mindfulness, always on form

Such a simple question and you can't make the slightest headway - better call the marines


TV

TV01:

That is, I am utterly bereft of answers to a simple question, so I am going to dribble around aimlessly and fight as one who beats the air. Mindfulness, always on form

Such a simple question and you can't make the slightest headway - better call the marines


TV

I am actually proud of my creativity that was inspired by your strong desire to control that could be replaced by your trust in the Almighty and that ALL IS WELL.


All I know is this, making people stay together by force will SELDOM - if at all - help children. It will rather have the reverse effect.

Couples should have easy and cheap access to counseling and if all efforts fail, they should be guided through the divorce process in such a way that they are enabled to cooperate in the best interest of their children.

Good education is another factor that can contribute to not only a healthy development of children but to a sensible approach to life by their parents.
The elimination of poverty is another factor that is important in the greater scheme of things.

Divorce per se is not a guarantee that children will turn out bad and marriage per se is not a guarantee that children will turn out good.

Mindfulness:




I am actually proud of my creativity that was inspired by your strong desire to control that could be replaced by your trust in the Almighty and that ALL IS WELL.


All I know is this, making people stay together by force will SELDOM - if at all - help children. It will rather have the reverse effect.

Couples should have easy and cheap access to counseling and if all efforts fail, they should be guided through the divorce process in such a way that they are enabled to cooperate in the best interest of their children.

Good education is another factor that can contribute to not only a healthy development of children but to a sensible approach to life by their parents.
The elimination of poverty is another factor that is important in the greater scheme of things.

Divorce per se is not a guarantee that children will turn out bad and marriage per se is not a guarantee that children will turn out good.

I though I was the epistleer . Answer the question, with help if required. You have stated marriage is no gaurantee - implying that it is not ATBE the best way. Fine, no problem;

In lieu of marriage how does society go about optimising the long-term raising of well-adjusted, healthy and productive citizens.

Abi you want to keep us entertained doing "keepy-uppy"


TV

TV01:

I though I was the epistleer . Answer the question, with help if required. You have stated marriage is no gaurantee - implying that it is not ATBE the best way. Fine, no problem;

In lieu of marriage how does society go about optimising the long-term raising of well-adjusted, healthy and productive citizens.

Abi you want to keep us entertained doing "keepy-uppy"


TV

It is the shared responsibility of parents and the society as a whole with parents having more responsibility.
Parents do their job as best as they can and the society provides free high quality education and laws that protect children from abuse and neglect.

You don't have to be and remain married to raise your children in a decent way.