Marriage and Affairs

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



lil bitchiness
I was reading some studies in connection with social change in our society and one of those included marriage and infidelity.

Interestingly, while men are typically attributed to cheating in marriages, women, while still lagging, are quite near in numbers of those who have had an affair or a lover.

What are your thoughts on infidelity of men and women in marriage institutions?
What do you think causes people in committed relationships to have an affair?

Have you been in such situation? How, if at all, do you think it affects children?
Or if you were a child of a parent who was having an affair has it affected you at all and if so, how?

Is affair better option than divorce? Has the marriage in modern society mutated? Should 'sanctity of marriage' be kept and how is it important if at all?

Please do not bring religion into this - this is purely a discussion of a social phenomenon.

Darth Jello
I think society needs to realize that everyone has urges, that everyone has the ability to hurt someone regardless of gender, and that no sex before marriage is idiotic. I think that before two people get married, both should be at least 28 years old, have had sex more than once with each other, and must be absolutely sure about their sexual orientation.

King Kandy
"Open Relationships" are the most logical structure imo. But without some real changed in our culture, most won't go for that.

I've always seen cheating as a symptom of deeper issues in a lot of cases, so placing blame squarely on the cheater isn't a good way to look at it.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by King Kandy
"Open Relationships" are the most logical structure imo. But without some real changed in our culture, most won't go for that.

I've always seen cheating as a symptom of deeper issues in a lot of cases, so placing blame squarely on the cheater isn't a good way to look at it.

I concur. I think affairs stem from deeper issues and many are emotional as well as sexual.
I read somewhere that only 12% of those who cheated did so because the other woman was incredibly attractive. Other 88% did it for emotional fulfilment as well as sex.

Blinky
IMO it's not even worth getting married these days.

Best to stay single, kept your own bank account and not have babies. People (men or women) are not capable of staying true to each other or having long term relationships.

King Kandy
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I concur. I think affairs stem from deeper issues and many are emotional as well as sexual.
I read somewhere that only 12% of those who cheated did so because the other woman was incredibly attractive. Other 88% did it for emotional fulfilment as well as sex.

Definitely. I think there's a kind of gender double standard for cheating, and neither perception is accurate at all.

Men cheat because they're douchebags. Dump 'm baby, don't even bother thinking about any possible shortcomings on your part in this whole affair...

Women cheat because A. they're whores, or B. their marriage wasn't fulfilling, and it's just the guy's fault again.

Not a healthy attitude to have at all.

inimalist
polyamoury for all!

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Blinky
Best to stay single, kept your own bank account and not have babies.

That's got to be the least sustainable idea I've ever heard.

Blinky
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's got to be the least sustainable idea I've ever heard.

"Sustainable" in what respect? For humanity? If that's what you mean, I could care less.

When I wrote "single" I should have said "unmarried", to be more clear.

WickedDynamite
A lot of foks will not agree with my opinion on this but FUDGE IT!

The fact is people don't take Marriage seriously these days. I can tell this from my family and the families of friends. There are too many single moms out there that get pregnant and expect the guy to wed them and be happy. Not the case, even worse marry another guy just so that the kid can have the father image. It may work and it may not work you're gambling 50/50 in that case.

Even worse is when people marry out of fear of been lonely. I personally think that's the reason why divorces continue to increase in our culture. People just marry out of fear of been alone and take the next thing to salvage. Now, I'm friggin 33 years old and my older aunts continue to worry about when will I tie the knot and shit. Well, sorry, ain't going to happen and when it does it will be when I know is the right time.

Love me for what I am.

King Kandy
Originally posted by inimalist
polyamoury for all!
If you're careful, that's a good suggestion.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
polyamoury for all!

Doesn't that sort of assume that all people really want to be polyamorous?

Joking aside, the existence of jealousy and evidence that women's brain chemistry changes after having children suggests that universal polyamory just wouldn't be very stable in the long term without massive leaps in medical science.

-Pr-
I take marriage pretty seriously, but i also think sex before marriage is something everyone should indulge in. find the right person, and make sure they're the right person before you commit to something.

I don't like kindly on infidelity, tbh.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness

Please do not bring religion into this - this is purely a discussion of a social phenomenon.
I'd argue that Religion does play a part in it.

Robtard
'The key to staying happily married is cheating, but you must never, ever, ever fall in love with the person(s) you're having an affair with and you must keep your spouse completely ignorant of the activities.' - A man much wiser than myself who shall remain anonymous

Darth Jello
Originally posted by WickedDynamite
A lot of foks will not agree with my opinion on this but FUDGE IT!

The fact is people don't take Marriage seriously these days. I can tell this from my family and the families of friends. There are too many single moms out there that get pregnant and expect the guy to wed them and be happy. Not the case, even worse marry another guy just so that the kid can have the father image. It may work and it may not work you're gambling 50/50 in that case.

Even worse is when people marry out of fear of been lonely. I personally think that's the reason why divorces continue to increase in our culture. People just marry out of fear of been alone and take the next thing to salvage. Now, I'm friggin 33 years old and my older aunts continue to worry about when will I tie the knot and shit. Well, sorry, ain't going to happen and when it does it will be when I know is the right time.

Love me for what I am.

I actually agree with you. I think it's partially from desensitization in culture and partially because people enter marriage when they're financially unprepared and emotionally immature. It ****ing boggles my mind how many people don't know that like, "I'm person A and person C is in love with me. If I do action B, it will have an affect on person C." And it's not about marital sanctity or not having sex or conservative morals or whatever. It's about this slightly sociopathic inclination that many people seem to have in regards to relationships.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd argue that Religion does play a part in it.

It pays absolutely no part in any question I asked in original post unless a religious person offers a reasoning of 'Devil made him/her do it'.
Post clearly states that sociological perspective is being challenged and that person should not include religious aspects in answering the question about structure of our society.

It palys no part in answering why people cheat, nor how it affects children, nor should we save marriage for our society and if that is at all important and has marriage changed.

Again...unless you answer ''devil did it''.

WickedDynamite
Agreed, it pays no part in the discussion. Peopld do marry in a civil manner and just skip religious weddings and stuff.

Robtard
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It pays absolutely no part in any question I asked in original post unless a religious person offers a reasoning of 'Devil made him/her do it'.
Post clearly states that sociological perspective is being challenged and that person should not include religious aspects in answering the question about structure of our society.

It palys no part in answering why people cheat, nor how it affects children, nor should we save marriage for our society and if that is at all important and has marriage changed.

Again...unless you answer ''devil did it''.

Considering the concept of marriage/being faithful/staying together is heavily entrenched with religious ideals, Bardick42 does have a point, just saying.

You can ignore the religious aspect and your thread still works, though.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It pays absolutely no part in any question I asked in original post unless a religious person offers a reasoning of 'Devil made him/her do it'.
Post clearly states that sociological perspective is being challenged and that person should not include religious aspects in answering the question about structure of our society.

It palys no part in answering why people cheat, nor how it affects children, nor should we save marriage for our society and if that is at all important and has marriage changed.

Again...unless you answer ''devil did it''.

I disagree, the religious views people have, or also the ones the children of them have, do all play part in how it affects their children, it might even play part in why people cheat and it relates to other points raised in this thread.

I agree that the metaphysical aspects of religion are definitely not too important of here but the sociological and psychological impacts of it seem to be at least part of what you mean to discuss, no?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Considering the concept of marriage/being faithful/staying together is heavily entrenched with religious ideals, Bardick42 does have a point, just saying.

You can ignore the religious aspect and your thread still works, though. Yeah, that's part of what I meant, I find it hard to separate it.

Thank you for explaining it better, Robturd, my friend.

lil bitchiness
Great, my post has disappeared.

Bardock42
(auto quote)

Well, I understand that you want to leave parts of religion out it, but since you want the opinion of people they can have religious reasons for their opinions and want to explain then to them, or others might think that infidelity is somewhat influenced by religious beliefs.

But what exactly do you mean with "leave religion out of it" anyways?

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
I disagree, the religious views people have, or also the ones the children of them have, do all play part in how it affects their children, it might even play part in why people cheat and it relates to other points raised in this thread.

I agree that the metaphysical aspects of religion are definitely not too important of here but the sociological and psychological impacts of it seem to be at least part of what you mean to discuss, no?

Why don't you read the post you quoted again, I think that answers the question.

You quoted my post saying ''I think religion plays a part in it''.

My post clearly states that there should be no religious discussion since I propose 'social' discussion.

Then after my post you went on to say that actually, here religion is not important because I want to talk about sociological impacts.

So I really don't know the point of bringing that to light at all, since the post never implied separation of religion, but asked that religion is kept out of sociological impact.

So you're either trolling me, or you just wanted to reply with something for the sake of replying.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Great, my post has disappeared.

I still have it:

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Why don't you read the post you quoted again, I think that answers the question.

You quoted my post saying ''I think religion plays a part in it''.

My post clearly states that there should be no religious discussion since I propose 'social' discussion.

Then after my post you went on to say that actually, here religion is not important because I want to talk about sociological impacts.

So I really don't know the point of bringing that to light at all, since the post never implied separation of religion, but asked that religion is kept out of sociological impact.

So you're either trolling me, or you just wanted to reply with something for the sake of replying.

Yeah, but I don't understand that. Religion is obviously a part of the sociological discussion of the topic, it is perhaps not the main focus, nor are all the religious aspects important, but do you think you can really just separate it in this discussion?

WickedDynamite
Marriage and religion can be separated. Using a streching example would governments that don't recognize religion such as a China or back in the USSR.

Bardock42
Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Marriage and religion can be separated. Using a streching example would governments that don't recognize religion such as a China or back in the USSR. Yes, I know that. I am not saying that all marriage is religious. I just mean that reasons for cheating, as well as against, as well as the consequences can be strongly influenced by religious beliefs.

inimalist
Originally posted by King Kandy
If you're careful, that's a good suggestion.

careful that the woman don't find out stick out tongue

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Doesn't that sort of assume that all people really want to be polyamorous?

Joking aside, the existence of jealousy and evidence that women's brain chemistry changes after having children suggests that universal polyamory just wouldn't be very stable in the long term without massive leaps in medical science.

lol, damn literalists

there are lots of biological and social reasons why lots of people probably wouldn't pick polyamoury.

Paola
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I was reading some studies in connection with social change in our society and one of those included marriage and infidelity.

Interestingly, while men are typically attributed to cheating in marriages, women, while still lagging, are quite near in numbers of those who have had an affair or a lover.

What are your thoughts on infidelity of men and women in marriage institutions?
What do you think causes people in committed relationships to have an affair?

Have you been in such situation? How, if at all, do you think it affects children?
Or if you were a child of a parent who was having an affair has it affected you at all and if so, how?

Is affair better option than divorce? Has the marriage in modern society mutated? Should 'sanctity of marriage' be kept and how is it important if at all?

Please do not bring religion into this - this is purely a discussion of a social phenomenon.

The Bible says... nah I've never read that thing...

Infidelity in my side of the world if you are a man is a must, the more women you have, the more man you are... and if you have an extramarital relationship you are nothing less than a god.

If you are a woman you're socially pointed as a whore... but truth is whether you're taking revenge on your husband/boyfriend/wtv or you have serious and real issues... and yeah why not? you can also enjoy sex so much that you can't be satisfied with one man.

I see infidelity affecting children in any possible way, like developing a general hate for the opposite sex, for infidelity, for marriage... I know a girl who's mom was her dad's lover and she's perfectly fine, well she mustn't but apparently has no serious issues on marriage or men or social interaction... her brother on the other hand hates both mom and dad for making him live that situation... he's on drugs, has no job... the guy is lost. Which makes me wonder why 2 ppl with the same genes are affected so differently by the same situation?

An affair is only better than divorce if and only if you can live with it, otherwise you'll only be torturing yourself along with the ones you love making marriage and your life a living hell which will be undoubtedly reflected in society.

Marriage is changing slowly I think, as it should, for the best I hope. I think it's 'sanctity' should be kept, no matter what, after all is a social contract, why taking it if you're not to respect it? That would be dumb. But that's my personal opinion, it's social importance might rely on how trusted or how truth could you be, in any field. For example, right now in my country, every politician in every party is being questioned on this matter. It is obvious we can't expect them to respect our rights, demands and so on if they can't respect the simple social contract that marriage is.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but I don't understand that. Religion is obviously a part of the sociological discussion of the topic, it is perhaps not the main focus, nor are all the religious aspects important, but do you think you can really just separate it in this discussion?

Yes. Just like Paola has done.Originally posted by Paola
The Bible says... nah I've never read that thing...

Infidelity in my side of the world if you are a man is a must, the more women you have, the more man you are... and if you have an extramarital relationship you are nothing less than a god.

If you are a woman you're socially pointed as a whore... but truth is whether you're taking revenge on your husband/boyfriend/wtv or you have serious and real issues... and yeah why not? you can also enjoy sex so much that you can't be satisfied with one man.

I see infidelity affecting children in any possible way, like developing a general hate for the opposite sex, for infidelity, for marriage... I know a girl who's mom was her dad's lover and she's perfectly fine, well she mustn't but apparently has no serious issues on marriage or men or social interaction... her brother on the other hand hates both mom and dad for making him live that situation... he's on drugs, has no job... the guy is lost. Which makes me wonder why 2 ppl with the same genes are affected so differently by the same situation?

An affair is only better than divorce if and only if you can live with it, otherwise you'll only be torturing yourself along with the ones you love making marriage and your life a living hell which will be undoubtedly reflected in society.

Marriage is changing slowly I think, as it should, for the best I hope. I think it's 'sanctity' should be kept, no matter what, after all is a social contract, why taking it if you're not to respect it? That would be dumb. But that's my personal opinion, it's social importance might rely on how trusted or how truth could you be, in any field. For example, right now in my country, every politician in every party is being questioned on this matter. It is obvious we can't expect them to respect our rights, demands and so on if they can't respect the simple social contract that marriage is.

Thanks Paola, that's an excellent insight!

I do have a further question. Do you think the social conscience of your country affects cheating rates, or is it more socially acceptable to cheat?
Men from your country, as I understand, sometimes have a negative stereotypes about cheating attached to them (and men from few other countries around, if you know what I mean).
Do you find that people are more talking about cheating nowadays, and thus it is more visible?

Do you think it varies from culture to culture or do you think that the only thing that varies is the social acceptance, but cheating is more or less (behind closed doors) on the similar level everywhere?

Rogue Jedi
If you can't stay single, then don't marry, unless you and your other have a swinger type agreement.

Alpha Centauri
If you are having urges to cheat or stray, confront your loved one and tell them this.

Tell them that the honesty came first and that you either want to work things out so that you no longer wish to stray, or end it and THEN find someone else.

I'd say that's ideal, but ultimately some things don't work out ideally and you do what you can. Not all cheating is malicious, it can suck, but it can also be a get-out clause. Too many variables and there are ways to avoid it. Way too many variables though.

As for what Paola said; marriage has no sanctity. Marriage isn't a special ceremony anymore, if it ever was. It's one of the most outdated practices in the modern world. Unless there's a specific reason or personal preference, don't do it. It's certainly not NEEDED.

-AC

dadudemon
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you are having urges to cheat or stray, confront your loved one and tell them this.

Tell them that the honesty came first and that you either want to work things out so that you no longer wish to stray, or end it and THEN find someone else.

This.

Mindship
Very generally speaking...

Despite what Madison Ave says, life is not a party where everyone can be a celebrity. Our expectations have become increasingly unrealistic. Marriage requires sacrifice to work, putting the other person first, not always yourself. Affairs often address disappointments grounded in fantasy.

-Pr-
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you are having urges to cheat or stray, confront your loved one and tell them this.

Tell them that the honesty came first and that you either want to work things out so that you no longer wish to stray, or end it and THEN find someone else.

I'd say that's ideal, but ultimately some things don't work out ideally and you do what you can. Not all cheating is malicious, it can suck, but it can also be a get-out clause. Too many variables and there are ways to avoid it. Way too many variables though.

As for what Paola said; marriage has no sanctity. Marriage isn't a special ceremony anymore, if it ever was. It's one of the most outdated practices in the modern world. Unless there's a specific reason or personal preference, don't do it. It's certainly not NEEDED.

-AC

it has sanctity to some people.

The Dark Cloud
I think the legal definition of marriage should be abolished. Nobody should be able to legally marry.

If someone wants to consider themself married, fine. If they want their religion to view them as married then that's good too.

But the legal system shouldn't get involved here at all.

And as for why people stray, I think deep down it has to do with evolutional/reproductive reasons. one might THINK they are doing it for emotional fufillment, but in the end sex is all about reproduction. The more sex partners a man has the more offspring he can potentially produce. The more a woman has the better chance she can find a mate with superior genes.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by -Pr-
it has sanctity to some people.

Yes, and to some people their children are miracles, despite being the product of hundreds of millions of sperm rushing toward an egg.

Some people are just wrong.

-AC

-Pr-
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, and to some people their children are miracles, despite being the product of hundreds of millions of sperm rushing toward an egg.

Some people are just wrong.

-AC

wow. just... wow.

King Kandy
Originally posted by inimalist
careful that the woman don't find out stick out tongue
I'm being serious here. Marriage is not about sex... it is something deeper. Thinking that extra-marital sex violates marriage is imo insulting to the entire concept of marriage, basically saying sex is the be all and end all of a relationship.

Cheating is bad because it is a violation of trust. But if both parties are okay with it, then extra-marital sex is completely fine. Dissociating sex from marriage will allow people to see beyond their simple urges and understand each other on a deeper level.

Paola
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yes. Just like Paola has done.

Thanks Paola, that's an excellent insight!

I do have a further question. Do you think the social conscience of your country affects cheating rates, or is it more socially acceptable to cheat?
Men from your country, as I understand, sometimes have a negative stereotypes about cheating attached to them (and men from few other countries around, if you know what I mean).
Do you find that people are more talking about cheating nowadays, and thus it is more visible?

Do you think it varies from culture to culture or do you think that the only thing that varies is the social acceptance, but cheating is more or less (behind closed doors) on the similar level everywhere?

love


We have a double morality, you know? While socially speaking we despise cheating and everything related to the subject, we congratulate each other for doing it while nobody's watching. But yeah, in general our social conscience won't let us do it... I personally won't do it for respect to myself and everyone involved.

Nah, men here are heroes if they manage to cheat on their wives/gf/wtv and they don't find out... Fortunately women are improving on the matter and it is more common nowadays that we congratulate ourselves when cheating on them, though as I said we do it more for revenge than anything else, I think it's because we are taught since childhood that marriage is a love-respect-trust-so on issue, while males are taught that "women are for bed-cooking-raising kids-laundry-housemaking-all that nonsense stuff" and they are allowed to have endless number of affairs while wife is at home.

I say a little bit of both, we are more open about it and since we can get divorced, well, it's easier to cheat, after all if we get caught or fall in love with the other person, we sign a divorce paper and everyone happy

I have no idea on that one, but I'll take a guess and say it must vary from culture to culture, place to place... there's polygamy legal somewhere in this world, right? There's this other culture where women can't even show their face in public so I can imagine they can't say a word if someone cheated on them, or beat them or anything.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by -Pr-
wow. just... wow.

What? It's true. People choosing to believe something doesn't mean it's there.

If you choose to believe your children are miracles of nature, you're wrong. If you choose to believe that the legal act of marriage, in 2009, is sacred and full of sanctity, you're wrong.

This is a world of divorce and infidelity, and marriages that work are no more a testament to the legal ceremony than they are of that particular relationship working out.

If you don't work as a couple, marriage won't fix it. If you do, marriage won't matter.

-AC

dadudemon
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What? It's true. People choosing to believe something doesn't mean it's there.

If you choose to believe your children are miracles of nature, you're wrong. If you choose to believe that the legal act of marriage, in 2009, is sacred and full of sanctity, you're wrong.

This is a world of divorce and infidelity, and marriages that work are no more a testament to the legal ceremony than they are of that particular relationship working out.

If you don't work as a couple, marriage won't fix it. If you do, marriage won't matter.

-AC



But, a legal binding agreement that says you are together, with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities, does matter. That's the only problem with your otherwise perfect points. If you don't want to call it marriage, that's fine. However, there has to be some sort of agreement between twe people, contractual if you will, that allows for the union.

Blood family only works so far. There has to be a legal agreement for getting together with someone not part of the blood family.


You can take my post to mean whatever you want, including two friends that want to live together for five years and later separate due to a disagreement. Still, a legal contract would have to be made to make things more simple.


If you want common-law marriage to be the only kind (in which, living together for so long sharing such and such items constitutes a legal marriage), then that's fine. I agree with that as well. However, that removes the "sentimental" portion of that relationship when family and friends come from all sides when the couple makes it official in front of family and friend. Making it official is both a legal and a sentimental thing.


Now, argue that point of it needing to be legal cause I'm curious.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by dadudemon
But, a legal binding agreement that says you are together, with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities, does matter. That's the only problem with your otherwise perfect points. If you don't want to call it marriage, that's fine. However, there has to be some sort of agreement between twe people, contractual if you will, that allows for the union.

No there doesn't.

I know plenty of couples, even ones who have children, that are unmarried. They work just fine.

Your flaw is assuming there needs to be an official union.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Blood family only works so far. There has to be a legal agreement for getting together with someone not part of the blood family.

No there doesn't, for reasons above.

Whether or not marriage comes with legal benefits or not is irrelevent. You don't need them. My point was necessity, not luxury or convenience.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You can take my post to mean whatever you want, including two friends that want to live together for five years and later separate due to a disagreement. Still, a legal contract would have to be made to make things more simple.

Legal contracts also make the break up worse.

If I'm in a relationship for a long, long time, or even one that isn't lengthy but emotionally packed? The last thing I want to do when it ends is fight in a court over who gets what stuff.

Admittedly marriages and relationships end for all different reasons; some end acrimoniously and some end fine, but you cannot blanketly argue that legal contracts make breaking up simpler or more easy.

They can, and often do, make things harder.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you want common-law marriage to be the only kind (in which, living together for so long sharing such and such items constitutes a legal marriage), then that's fine. I agree with that as well. However, that removes the "sentimental" portion of that relationship when family and friends come from all sides when the couple makes it official in front of family and friend. Making it official is both a legal and a sentimental thing.


Now, argue that point of it needing to be legal cause I'm curious.

Sentimental is choice, you don't need to do that. Marriage is not needed, it doesn't matter how much you feel it's important. You do not factually need to be married, emotionally. If you did, non-marriage relationships do not exist. If you want to get married for a personal reason or whatever, I don't care. Do what you want. Just don't act like you need it.

If marriage didn't exist, would you invent it?

Somebody did and now most women feel like their man doesn't love them or they can't work as a couple if they don't get married. It's conditioning nonsense. Nobody needs marriage. If you "need" marriage, you're weak. If you're male and you "need" marriage, you're weak.

The very fact that non-marriage relationships, and even families, exist proves that marriage is not legally necessary either. To get the benefits? Yes. To live? To love? To be happy and have a relationship? No.

Regarding the legality.

-AC

dadudemon
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No there doesn't.

I know plenty of couples, even ones who have children, that are unmarried. They work just fine.

Your flaw is assuming there needs to be an official union.


You didn't pay attention to my post then. I don't know how much more clear I could have made my post.


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No there doesn't, for reasons above.

Whether or not marriage comes with legal benefits or not is irrelevent. You don't need them. My point was necessity, not luxury or convenience.

Oh, so...can you bridge the gap for certain legals rights such as automatic power of executor ship, medical release information, etc.?

You do know that there are 1049 identified rights and privileges associated with marriage, don't you? (for the US)

Found here on page 1:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf


If you eliminate some of the fluff and useless items, I'm sure there would still be hundreds of rights and privileges associated with marriage. You can call it civil union, mutual contract, etc. It doesn't matter what you call it. It's still a legal binding agreement between two people which is absolutely necessary.



Unless humans make a massive leap towards a social utopia, there's really no way around these agreements being necessary. You can pretend everything will be hunky dorie without the laws in place, but that's simply a candy-coated perspective on reality. Relationships can be quite nasty and break-ups get even nastier; however, the breaking up part is only a part of it.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Legal contracts also make the break up worse.

If I'm in a relationship for a long, long time, or even one that isn't lengthy but emotionally packed? The last thing I want to do when it ends is fight in a court over who gets what stuff.

Admittedly marriages and relationships end for all different reasons; some end acrimoniously and some end fine, but you cannot blanketly argue that legal contracts make breaking up simpler or more easy.

They can, and often do, make things harder.

Glad this wasn't my even the majority of my point, then, right?

In your candy coated world, people mutually break-up and each partner treats the mutual property as altruistically as possible or they agree to sell it all and split the money.

That's not reality.


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Sentimental is choice, you don't need to do that. Marriage is not needed, it doesn't matter how much you feel it's important. You do not factually need to be married, emotionally. If you did, non-marriage relationships do not exist. If you want to get married for a personal reason or whatever, I don't care. Do what you want. Just don't act like you need it.


I AGREE! This is what you're not getting.

Marriage is not absolutely necessary. However, something, that goes by another name, and a slightly different definition, would have to exist. No. Matter. What.

Here's the conditions that have to be met in order to change that statement:








No. I'm not an innovator, I'm an improver. big grin

Chances are, in a world where no marriage or social binding existing between two or more people, a concept such as marriage would seem foreign or even useless. If we just went about our lives, doing things as individuals and only got together for just a few minutes to copulate, things would be different.

However, we are far more social than that.






You are too hung up on the word "marriage."

Sure, you can form a relationship. Great. Awesome. But you must provide legal rights and privilages for that relationship due to MANY things to could arise. One of which is a break-down and separation in that relationship.


You can call those legal provisions something other than marriage as you obviously have a personal problem with it.

"that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet"

You can call it a relationship, others will call it a marriage. It really is the same thing...just one lacks the sentimental union ceremony (most of the time)

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by dadudemon
You didn't pay attention to my post then. I don't know how much more clear I could have made my post.

What exactly was I misunderstanding then? Correct me by all means if I did. I didn't, though, from what I can see.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, so...can you bridge the gap for certain legals rights such as automatic power of executor ship, medical release information, etc.?

You do know that there are 1049 identified rights and privileges associated with marriage, don't you? (for the US)

Found here on page 1:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

If you eliminate some of the fluff and useless items, I'm sure there would still be hundreds of rights and privileges associated with marriage. You can call it civil union, mutual contract, etc. It doesn't matter what you call it. It's still a legal binding agreement between two people which is absolutely necessary.

Unless humans make a massive leap towards a social utopia, there's really no way around these agreements being necessary. You can pretend everything will be hunky dorie without the laws in place, but that's simply a candy-coated perspective on reality. Relationships can be quite nasty and break-ups get even nastier; however, the breaking up part is only a part of it.

All of that is useless fluff in and of itself, Dudemon.

I am not denying there are benefits, you're arguing something I didn't deny. I am simply saying they are not all necessary, and that's a fact.

It is not a candy-coated view of reality because it is a reality I have seen in many couples. I have seen it with my own eyes, Dudemon. None of what you just posted has countered the fact that I have seen couples and couples with children live without marriage or any kind of official union.

There is no need to pretend everything will be hunky-dory, because I've seen people prove that everything you just showed is absolutely unnecessary.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Glad this wasn't my even the majority of my point, then, right?

In you candy coated world, people mutually break-up and each partner treats the mutual property as altruistically as possible or they agree to sell it all and split the money.

That's not reality.

Where did I say that? I swear I said:

"Admittedly marriages and relationships end for all different reasons; some end acrimoniously and some end fine, but you cannot blanketly argue that legal contracts make breaking up simpler or more easy.

They can, and often do, make things harder.".

Now I want to see you retract what you just said.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I AGREE! This is what you're not getting.

Marriage is not absolutely necessary. However, something, that goes by another name, and a slightly different definition, would have to exist. No. Matter. What.

Then you're not talking about marriage are you? My argument was only that marriage isn't necessary and neither are the benefits.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No. I'm not an innovator, I'm an improver. big grin

Chances are, in a world where no marriage or social binding existing between two or more people, a concept such as marriage would seem foreign or even useless. If we just went about our lives, doing things as individuals and only got together for just a few minutes to copulate, things would be different.

However, we are far more social than that.

Marriage is useless, outside of sentimental or personal desire.

It's an outdated and archaic practice.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You are too hung up on the word "marriage."

Sure, you can form a relationship. Great. Awesome. But you must provide legal rights and privilages for that relationship due to MANY things to could arise. One of which is a break-down and separation in that relationship.

I've said to you before, you cannot blanketly say that legal contracts make separation easier, nor worse.

People are capable of getting over marriage break-ups and relationship break-ups, where property is involved, you know. Some people aren't. This proves that it could go either way without the legality of it.

It's only necessary for certain people as individuals. I said this above and you ignored it, choosing to say that I thought everyone's break-ups were fine.

There shouldn't be legal unions or marriage ceremonies. There should only be legal contracts whereby you say "If we break-up, this is mine and this is yours.". or whatever.

No marriage necessary. Just like sharing a bank account.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You can call those legal provisions something other than marriage as you obviously have a personal problem with it.

You don't understand the problem I have, though. That's the issue.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You can call it a relationship, others will call it a marriage. It really is the same thing...just one lacks the sentimental union ceremony (most of the time)

You assume the union ceremony is inherently sentimental.

I think weddings are preposterous. Stupid, archaic, self-indulgent nonsense that nobody in their right mind wants to attend anyway. Have a reception celebration if you want, but the idea of assuming people have nothing better to do with their day than to sit in a hall/church and watch two people get legally attached, is sickening to me.

-AC

-Pr-
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What? It's true. People choosing to believe something doesn't mean it's there.

If you choose to believe your children are miracles of nature, you're wrong. If you choose to believe that the legal act of marriage, in 2009, is sacred and full of sanctity, you're wrong.

This is a world of divorce and infidelity, and marriages that work are no more a testament to the legal ceremony than they are of that particular relationship working out.

If you don't work as a couple, marriage won't fix it. If you do, marriage won't matter.

-AC

just because you don't believe it's there doesn't mean it isn't.

the world is full of infidelity because people are stupid. not because marriage is somehow inherently flawed.

children can be special to their parents. marrying someone can be a special thing. just because your cynicism won't let you believe that, doesn't mean you're right.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by -Pr-
just because you don't believe it's there doesn't mean it isn't.

the world is full of infidelity because people are stupid. not because marriage is somehow inherently flawed.

children can be special to their parents. marrying someone can be a special thing. just because your cynicism won't let you believe that, doesn't mean you're right.

Do you have a suitable counter besides your own emotions?

Children are not miraculous. That's a scientific fact. If you think child conception or birth is miraculous, you're wrong. That's not cynicism, that's science. Each man, on average, releases 20-100 million sperm per milliliter. One of them making it to the egg is not miraculous.

As for marriage, your argument doesn't work. I'm not disbelieving marriage is a special act, it isn't. Unbiasedly, objectively, it isn't. It is a legal ceremony.

If it were a special, sacred act, it would be so inherently.

Your choice to invest sentimentality into it doesn't change that. You have every right to enjoy it as a "special day" or whatever, just don't have any illusions. Nothing literally changes, it's signing a piece of paper.

-AC

-Pr-
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Do you have a suitable counter besides your own emotions?

Children are not miraculous. That's a scientific fact. If you think child conception or birth is miraculous, you're wrong. That's not cynicism, that's science.

As for marriage, your argument doesn't work. I'm not disbelieving marriage is a special act, it isn't. Unbiasedly, objectively, it isn't. It is a legal ceremony.

If it were a special, sacred act, it would be so inherently.

Your choice to invest sentimentality into it doesn't change that. You have every right to enjoy it as a "special day" or whatever, just don't have any illusions. Nothing literally changes, it's signing a piece of paper.

-AC

to you. that's the difference. to you, it's signing a piece of paper, or one lucky sperm fertilising an egg, and you're welcome to those opinions imo.

my beliefs =/= my emotions, so...

just because you want to believe i'm wrong doesn't make me wrong.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by -Pr-
to you. that's the difference. to you, it's signing a piece of paper, or one lucky sperm fertilising an egg, and you're welcome to those opinions imo.

my beliefs =/= my emotions, so...

just because you want to believe i'm wrong doesn't make me wrong.

No, you're getting confused here. They're not opinions.

It's not my opinion. Children are not miraculous, childbirth is not a miracle. This is a fact. As I edited above; Each man, on average, releases 20-100 million sperm per milliliter. One of them making it to the egg is not miraculous. To deny this is idiocy. It is not a miracle to be able to do something that we are biologically guaranteed to be able to do. Unless you're infertile, which is just bad luck.

Also, you are wrong AGAIN.

It doesn't matter what signing that piece of paper means to you. It is STILL just signing a piece of paper, FACT. Nothing LITERALLY changes, FACT.

It doesn't automatically make people more in love unless they choose to. The ceremony and legal act changes nothing.

These are facts.

If you are just going to deny fact, then don't enter the debate.

-AC

-Pr-
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, you're getting confused here. They're not opinions.

It's not my opinion. Children are not miraculous, childbirth is not a miracle. This is a fact. As I edited above; Each man, on average, releases 20-100 million sperm per milliliter. One of them making it to the egg is not miraculous. To deny this is idiocy. It is not a miracle to be able to do something that we are biologically guaranteed to be able to do. Unless you're infertile, which is just bad luck.

Also, you are wrong AGAIN.

It doesn't matter what signing that piece of paper means to you. It is STILL just signing a piece of paper, FACT. Nothing LITERALLY changes, FACT.

It doesn't automatically make people more in love unless they choose to. The ceremony and legal act changes nothing.

These are facts.

If you are just going to deny fact, then don't enter the debate.

-AC

i'm actually not, so keep your patronising to yourself, thanks.

nobody's saying childbirth isn't a biological process. you're not understanding. you can think having a child is special and still recognise how it was made. that's what you're not understanding.

did i say being married makes you love that person more? no, i didn't.

tbh, it's not so much a debate as you complaining because people choose to have a bit of belief in something that doesn't clash with the facts of the matter.

if you realised that, then maybe you wouldn't be so intent on mouthing off to people.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by -Pr-
i'm actually not, so keep your patronising to yourself, thanks.

nobody's saying childbirth isn't a biological process. you're not understanding. you can think having a child is special and still recognise how it was made. that's what you're not understanding.

did i say being married makes you love that person more? no, i didn't.

tbh, it's not so much a debate as you complaining because people choose to have a bit of belief in something that doesn't clash with the facts of the matter.

if you realised that, then maybe you wouldn't be so intent on mouthing off to people.

If you realised that the way you feel about the two subjects doesn't change what they are, then you wouldn't have replied in the first place.

Thinking your child is special to you doesn't make it a special thing in and of itself. It's not. There are enough single mothers getting knocked up to prove it's not.

Same with marriage.

You finding it to be a special part of your life does not make the process special.

-AC

dadudemon
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What exactly was I misunderstanding then? Correct me by all means if I did. I didn't, though, from what I can see.

If after reading the post you just replied to, and you still don't get it, you'll never get it (or you refuse to acknowledge it.) You should know that, by now, some people get so entrenched in their ideologies that, no matter what is presented, they will refuse to acknowledge a flaw with their side.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
All of that is useless fluff in and of itself, Dudemon.

No it's not because:



Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I am not denying there are benefits, you're arguing something I didn't deny. I am simply saying they are not all necessary, and that's a fact.

How can you lie to me when you just told me opposite just a few sentences ago?

Let me remind you again:

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
All of that is useless fluff in and of itself, Dudemon.

That's what you said, and now you're saying that some of that "fluff" is necessary?

And, just in case you try to wiggle out of it:

When you say, "I am simply saying that they are not all necessary, that's a fact." The leaves, without a doubt, that you know that some are necessary.

If all of it was useless fluff, then why would you then, just a few sentences later, admit that it all isn't?

I'll tell you why: you are just changing your position in order to be right about something. You can't repackage my point with different words and then try to pass it off as your own idea when you literally said those laws were all useless fluff just a few sentences prior. What are you really having this conversation for? Is it to offend others? Is it to start controversy? You've said similar things I have, already.

Here's fact. I said:



Then you said:

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I am not denying there are benefits, you're arguing something I didn't deny. I am simply saying they are not all necessary, and that's a fact.

Sounds like you're just repackaging what I'm saying in a negative way.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It is not a candy-coated view of reality because it is a reality I have seen in many couples. I have seen it with my own eyes, Dudemon. None of what you just posted has countered the fact that I have seen couples and couples with children live without marriage or any kind of official union.

No, it really is a candy-coated view. Just because you have seen couples live with children, without marriage, doesn't mean there isn't a legal union there. I bet you they have agreements with things like their cell-phone providers, doctors, cable, internet, etc. Those would technically be legal agreements...the very same damn thigns I'm talking about. If you think that those people are not legally united (aka, they ahve a legal union) then you really aren't aware of how your laws work. If they have children, bam: there's a legal union which binds those two together. If they have joint banks accounts. Bam. Legal union of two peoples.

And that's just a few items. Some places have instituated common law marriage due to peopole being too stupid/lazy/poor to get married. When they try to separate, there's all sorts of mess going on. So, the law was made to make it far easier to handle these messy cases....called, common law marriage. This helps with children, possessions, etc. And, common law marriage isn't everything, either. There's rights to

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There is no need to pretend everything will be hunky-dory, because I've seen people prove that everything you just showed is absolutely unnecessary.

And, you've just proved my point that you live in a candy-coated world. Your perspective is naive and cynical, at the same time. A very harsh and close-minded approach, really.

And, no, you didn't "just show" anything besides proving you don't know what a legal union is for. You think it's all about flowers, butterflies, and frolicing in the grass. You mentioend children, but only in passing. You haven't shown that you have the first clue about children in these relationships.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Where did I say that?

It's called hyperbole. I recycled your naivete into an obviously exaggerated representation of what you really said.

Don't pretend that every last point has to be word semantics simply to miss the point to be right.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Now I want to see you retract what you just said.

What, because you can't detect when someone is belittling you position? Not likely.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then you're not talking about marriage are you? My argument was only that marriage isn't necessary and neither are the benefits.

No it isn't.

This is your argument.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I am not denying there are benefits, you're arguing something I didn't deny. I am simply saying they are not all necessary, and that's a fact.

So, let's recap:

In your post alone, you have gone from saying it's all unecessary fluff to some of it being necessary, back to none of it being necessary.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Marriage is useless, outside of sentimental or personal desire.

It's an outdated and archaic practice.

Factually incorrect. You do know that your entire point falls straight on mere word semenatics, don't you? You don't want to call it marriage. Great. Call it a "relationship."

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I've said to you before, you cannot blanketly say that legal contracts make separation easier, nor worse.

The place of "easier' is on whom? Obviously, the state. Some instances, yes, it makes it easier. Other instances, it makes it harder. Regardless, these laws exist to make it easier in determining the who what when where how and why of things. Which sometimes, include children.

IMO, bringing children into a "relationship" is much more binding than any type of civil union.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
People are capable of getting over marriage break-ups and relationship break-ups, where property is involved, you know. Some people aren't. This proves that it could go either way without the legality of it.

Yeah, cept only a very very small percentage of those couples that do separate/divorce actually do so without involving some sort of law.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's only necessary for certain people as individuals. I said this above and you ignored it, choosing to say that I thought everyone's break-ups were fine.

Again, you are naive. You live in this candy coated world where you think laws don't need to exist. That's just rediculous.

Also, the top reasons for divorce are the same reasons for ending relatipnships. Again, I think it's just word semantics.

If everyone lived in mutually exclusive lives except for dates and the occasional late night stay over (and no gifts were given, no children had, etc), then, yes, you're naive world of no legal provisions for rights and privilages would be warranted. However, the chance that a long term relationship would actually play out like you said is really really close to 0. (Not even walking marriages are that cold.)

dadudemon
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There shouldn't be legal unions or marriage ceremonies. There should only be legal contracts whereby you say "If we break-up, this is mine and this is yours.". or whatever.

Dude. You just ended the debate. That's the same thing I've been trying to hammer into your head this whole time.

Here's the problem with your assessment, though: a legal contract that unites two people...ssounds familiar. What is it? That's right. A damned Civil Union/civil pact/life partnership agreement/etc. Those are just semantic words for marriage. Sure, the rights for those differ slightly, but they are largely the same as marriage.

Do you just want to play words semantics against "marriage"? Don't you think that is petty and a waste of time?

You do know that the ceremony is optional, don't you? It's not ncessary to get married. You can call it a Civil Contract, too.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You don't understand the problem I have, though. That's the issue.

Incorrect. Your posts have basically been a large messy regurgitation of my own ideas. Cept, my ideas are poored through a cynical filter and two cups of pessimism were added with a dash of word semantics then, presto, my own thoughts appear in your post as if they are new ideas.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You assume the union ceremony is inherently sentimental.

Yup. Pretty much is. It is unnecessary to get married in every state. Sure, the justice of the peace has to ask a few questions and the couple has to sign documents. Some places make you take blood tests n'stuff. But, the ceremony where vows and rings are exchanged in front of family and friends is completely sentimental.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I think weddings are preposterous. Stupid, archaic, self-indulgent nonsense that nobody in their right mind wants to attend anyway. Have a reception celebration if you want, but the idea of assuming people have nothing better to do with their day than to sit in a hall/church and watch two people get legally attached, is sickening to me.

That's fine. I agree almost wholly with what you're saying. However, I would LOVE to see most of my relatives get married. The free food isn't bad, either.

-Pr-
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you realised that the way you feel about the two subjects doesn't change what they are, then you wouldn't have replied in the first place.

Thinking your child is special to you doesn't make it a special thing in and of itself. It's not. There are enough single mothers getting knocked up to prove it's not.

Same with marriage.

You finding it to be a special part of your life does not make the process special.

-AC

it was my opinion, nothing more. that's why we're all here isn't it? to share our opinions?

so you're using someone who doesn't think their child is special to prove that it's wrong to think so?

why not? can you prove it's not special? no, because proving a negative is silly.

if i think my girlfriend is special, and believe it with all my heart, then who are you to tell me she isn't? or a child i might have in the future?

just because a marriage is at it's core a legal agreement doesn't take away the possibility that it can have more meaning than that.

same with babies.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by dadudemon
No it's not because:

How can you lie to me when you just told me opposite just a few sentences ago?

Let me remind you again:

That's what you said, and now you're saying that some of that "fluff" is necessary?

And, just in case you try to wiggle out of it:

When you say, "I am simply saying that they are not all necessary, that's a fact." The leaves, without a doubt, that you know that some are necessary.

If all of it was useless fluff, then why would you then, just a few sentences later, admit that it all isn't?

I'll tell you why: you are just changing your position in order to be right about something. You can't repackage my point with different words and then try to pass it off as your own idea when you literally said those laws were all useless fluff just a few sentences prior. What are you really having this conversation for? Is it to offend others? Is it to start controversy? You've said similar things I have, already.

Here's fact. I said:

Then you said:

Sounds like you're just repackaging what I'm saying in a negative way.

There's been a misunderstanding here.

I was under the impression, due to you saying this:

"If you eliminate some of the fluff and useless items, I'm sure there would still be hundreds of rights and privileges associated with marriage.".

That you felt the ceremony with rings and bullshit was the one that carried all the benefits. It doesn't, and you're wrong.

If that's not what you're saying, then we agree and there were just crossed wires.

If you are dating someone and want to make some legal notes to ensure that in the event of a break up, stuff is fairly shared, then fine. That has absolutely nothing to do with marrying someone in a church or registry office. It doesn't need an exchange of rings or vows.

That is not necessary. No inter-personal marriage is necessary here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, it really is a candy-coated view. Just because you have seen couples live with children, without marriage, doesn't mean there isn't a legal union there. I bet you they have agreements with things like their cell-phone providers, doctors, cable, internet, etc. Those would technically be legal agreements...the very same damn thigns I'm talking about. If you think that those people are not legally united (aka, they ahve a legal union) then you really aren't aware of how your laws work. If they have children, bam: there's a legal union which binds those two together. If they have joint banks accounts. Bam. Legal union of two peoples.]

I will ask them.

Even if they do, they have all of those without being married. That's my point, you do not need to be married to have those things. They didn't need a wedding for it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And that's just a few items. Some places have instituated common law marriage due to peopole being too stupid/lazy/poor to get married. When they try to separate, there's all sorts of mess going on. So, the law was made to make it far easier to handle these messy cases....called, common law marriage. This helps with children, possessions, etc. And, common law marriage isn't everything, either. There's rights to

And, you've just proved my point that you live in a candy-coated world. Your perspective is naive and cynical, at the same time. A very harsh and close-minded approach, really.

First off, your latter claim is contradictory.

How can one live in a candy-coated world whilst being cynical? I'm a realist when it comes to these things. People living in candy-coated worlds are ones who feel they need a wedding in their relationship.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, no, you didn't "just show" anything besides proving you don't know what a legal union is for. You think it's all about flowers, butterflies, and frolicing in the grass.

No, I don't. Fact.

If you do not feel a wedding needs to happen for those benefits to be accessed, then YOU agree with ME. Not vice versa.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You mentioend children, but only in passing. You haven't shown that you have the first clue about children in these relationships.

It's something I'm never going to have to worry about so that could be why.

Jokes aside, I know what I need to. That having one doesn't mean you need a wedding.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's called hyperbole. I recycled your naivete into an obviously exaggerated representation of what you really said.

Maybe just stick to what's actually been said next time then.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't pretend that every last point has to be word semantics simply to miss the point to be right.

Then stop exaggerating my words into things I've never said in an attempt to be right yourself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What, because you can't detect when someone is belittling you position? Not likely.

Strong talk, considering you hate it when someone "belittles" the position of a certain other person you like. It's only ok when you do it?

You didn't belittle anything, you exaggerated a position I don't hold.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No it isn't.

This is your argument.

So, let's recap:

In your post alone, you have gone from saying it's all unecessary fluff to some of it being necessary, back to none of it being necessary.

As long as you keep referring to marriage and weddings, there'll be unnecessary fluff.

It appears there was confusion, though. If you are not saying that you need a wedding to have these benefits, then stop using the word marriage. That's not semantics, that's confusion based on you insisting to use a term.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Factually incorrect. You do know that your entire point falls straight on mere word semenatics, don't you? You don't want to call it marriage. Great. Call it a "relationship."

No, because I'm not referring to marriage in the sense of two things coming together. I'm referring to marriage in the sense of a wedding.

There's no need for one.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The place of "easier' is on whom? Obviously, the state. Some instances, yes, it makes it easier. Other instances, it makes it harder. Regardless, these laws exist to make it easier in determining the who what when where how and why of things. Which sometimes, include children.

IMO, bringing children into a "relationship" is much more binding than any type of civil union.

Exactly, my point was that there are way too many variables to say anything makes the ending of a relationship easier.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, cept only a very very small percentage of those couples that do separate/divorce actually do so without involving some sort of law.

Doesn't matter if it's one couple or one million.

If it can be done, it can be done.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Again, you are naive. You live in this candy coated world where you think laws don't need to exist. That's just rediculous.

I believe the exact opposite, so at least extend the hyperbole in the right direction. Laws need to exist because without lawlessness is anarchy.

Weddings and marriage do not need to exist.

If you think they do, that's RIdiculous.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, the top reasons for divorce are the same reasons for ending relatipnships. Again, I think it's just word semantics.

If everyone lived in mutually exclusive lives except for dates and the occasional late night stay over (and no gifts were given, no children had, etc), then, yes, you're naive world of no legal provisions for rights and privilages would be warranted. However, the chance that a long term relationship would actually play out like you said is really really close to 0. (Not even walking marriages are that cold.)

I don't live in a world of no legal provisions, so please stop overly-stating a stance I don't hold. Civil request, just stop doing it. We're managing to have a civil debate, so keep it that way.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude. You just ended the debate. That's the same thing I've been trying to hammer into your head this whole time.

Here's the problem with your assessment, though: a legal contract that unites two people...ssounds familiar. What is it? That's right. A damned Civil Union/civil pact/life partnership agreement/etc. Those are just semantic words for marriage. Sure, the rights for those differ slightly, but they are largely the same as marriage.

Do you just want to play words semantics against "marriage"? Don't you think that is petty and a waste of time?

You do know that the ceremony is optional, don't you? It's not ncessary to get married. You can call it a Civil Contract, too.

How is "Yeah, we're gonna sign paper to agree who gets what." the same as spending a shit load of time and money to go into a church or hall and have a wedding? How am I playing semantics by saying tha latter is unnecessary but the former isn't?

You are the one who keeps involving marriage and ring exchange, and as long as you do, you will be including useless fluff that's detrimental to your own point. Since that's all we disagree on.

-AC

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yup. Pretty much is. It is unnecessary to get married in every state. Sure, the justice of the peace has to ask a few questions and the couple has to sign documents. Some places make you take blood tests n'stuff. But, the ceremony where vows and rings are exchanged in front of family and friends is completely sentimental.

No, it's not.

I know someone who got married for Visa issues. They weren't planning marriage, they didn't want to get married, they just used the procedure. It wasn't a lovey, dovey emotional day.

So no, the event is not factually sentimental. It can mean nothing to some people.

Originally posted by -Pr-
if i think my girlfriend is special, and believe it with all my heart, then who are you to tell me she isn't? or a child i might have in the future?

just because a marriage is at it's core a legal agreement doesn't take away the possibility that it can have more meaning than that.

same with babies.

Did you not read what I said?

If you wish to believe that your girlfriend is special to you, nobody can tell you different. Same with a child.

If you wish to claim your child is miraculous by sheer virtue of being born, same with your girlfriend, you're wrong.

-AC

Mindship
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Children are not miraculous. That's a scientific fact. If you think child conception or birth is miraculous, you're wrong. That's not cynicism, that's science. Each man, on average, releases 20-100 million sperm per milliliter. One of them making it to the egg is not miraculous.
I presume by 'miraculous' you mean a deity operating more/less in conjunction with laws of biology, in which case most of us (not the hard-core theists) likely agree with you.

However, when you consider the literally trillions of parts that go into constructing a human body -- all the chances for something to go wrong -- it is a 'miracle' that the average person functions as well as he/she does, 'miraculous' here expressing emotion. A scientifically explainable phenomenon can still be, eg, amazing (at least, I find they often are).

Alpha Centauri
Amazing doesn't equal miraculous.

Like I said, there are enough knocked-up and single teenage mothers around my town alone to suggest that getting pregnant and having a baby is not miraculous.

Something having a lot of parts coming together doesn't make it miraculous, at all. It's not meant to be a toss-up whether the pregnancy is a success or not, it's MEANT to work. So if anything, those chances for it to go WRONG would be closer to miraculous.

-AC

Ushgarak
Don't tell people not to enter debates because they do not share your opinions, AC.

And don't try and tell me they are facts and not opinions. That is and always will be JUST your opinion. There are plenty of scientists who think the creation of life is a miracle regardless of the biological understanding of the process. Meanwhile, science still has no answers as to what life or consciousness really is. If you do not think it is a miracle, fine. You have no place telling others that they are objectively wrong to think otherwise and hence should not enter the debate.

This is not a point for debate; simply do not make such a comment again. Warnngs if you do.

WickedDynamite
I never been a fan of using using science to infantilize the opinions of others. That's just bullying tactics and dishonest cheap academics.

Anywhoo...I should rephraze what I said earlier. Society does recognize marriage as important event. That is why people celebrate Golden or the rare diamond weddings. There may be cheating or may not be cheating...who knows? That's for the couples to fix...not others.

Now, observing past generations you can see more anniversaries for couples. The question now remains...how many golden anniversary weddings will THIS generation have?

We have to wait 50 years to find out. stick out tongue

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by WickedDynamite
I never been a fan of using using science to infantilize the opinions of others. That's just bullying tactics and dishonest cheap academics.

We differ there, then. I like using facts wherever possible, and find it distasteful and stupid when someone tries to overrule that with "To me...".

It's not bullying, but let's suppose it was.

If a bully starts calling a kid "Fatty" because he's fat. Is he not fat just because it's bullying? No, he's still fat. Bullying or not (Not, in this case), there are facts at play and thus wrapping someone in cotton wool because they don't like their opinion being overruled by fact, is silly.

Doesn't matter if it's marriage or childbirth, or anything else that we're discussing.

Everyone has the right to an opinion, but nobody has the right to ignore or deny fact.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Don't tell people not to enter debates because they do not share your opinions, AC.

And don't try and tell me they are facts and not opinions. That is and always will be JUST your opinion. There are plenty of scientists who think the creation of life is a miracle regardless of the biological understanding of the process. Meanwhile, science still has no answers as to what life or consciousness really is. If you do not think it is a miracle, fine. You have no place telling others that they are objectively wrong to think otherwise and hence should not enter the debate.

Science has precise and exact answers for reproduction.

You enter a female, you ejaculate a couple of hundred million sperm, ONE reaches the egg, the baby forms and then it's born. It doesn't matter if it's a prostitute or your 20 year long wife. The process is the same and is unaltered regardless of emotional investment. It doesn't matter what your opinion is of any one particular case of intercourse, it's still intercourse and it's the same for everybody, can you argue that?

That happens God knows how many times per day, and without contraception, would happen many times more.

The only way you can argue for it being miraculous is in the sense that Mindship said, and even then, it doesn't work. It doesn't work by definition (Dictionary or otherwise) nor by sense.

Doctors and indeed people often use "Miraculous", but as a synonym for "Amazing". Such as a "Miraculous" recovery. Doctors know how the recovery happened, thus it's not miraculous, it's just a word used to describe something astounding.

Every doctor knows how the human body works, yet they call it miraculous. Again, as a synonym for another superlative.

So really, you're just about wrong in everything you said. Just like someone who considers childbirth a miracle, is wrong.

-AC

inimalist
so you have evidence that there is no supernatural force active in the birth of a child?

Ushgarak
That's an official warning to you for arguing the point, AC. I made it very clear for you not to do that. You know full well to only argue such decisions in private. The fact that you are also making an ass of yourself in the eyes of just about everyone is its own punishment.

Post like that again and it will be a ban. I recommend you stay out of this thread as I have no confidence you can stay in it without posting in an unacceptable manner.

Alpha Centauri
I didn't argue against not telling him to enter the debate. I accept that decision. My post never once mentioned your decision.

Why are you warning me for debating the topic? You're essentially forcing me out of a thread because you dislike what I'm saying. I never once mentioned your decision because it was a fair one. I was wrong to say that to him, fair enough.

-AC

Ushgarak
I am forcing you out (or at least to stop your current attitude) because of your unacceptable bullying tactics and because, frankly, your unpleasant attitude ruins almost any thread you take part in. Time and time again you have gone against the ethic of showing courtesy in your posts. I will not allow it any further.

Take it to PM if you want to discuss it.

Blinky
So...how 'bout them Yankees?

King Kandy
Originally posted by inimalist
so you have evidence that there is no supernatural force active in the birth of a child?
No, that's what we call asking someone to "prove a negative".

inimalist
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, that's what we call asking someone to "prove a negative".

indeed

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of trying to vehemetly claim that science proves the origins of life are not miraculous by making such anti-scientific statements.

Were AC being scientific, he would say something like, "we have no evidence that supernatural forces are active in childbirth, and there appears to be no variance or mechanism for which introducing the supernatural would give a more thourough explanation". However, if he wanted to be truly scientific, he probably wouldn't go around making absolute statements about untestable things.

Ushgarak
At the point he was resorting to arguing semantics by what people mean when they say 'miracle' his argument was stone dead also. If it can die more than once.

inimalist
lol, not to just jump right on the bash AC train, but I also really think it is tasteless for people to go around trying to "debunk" that which people put deep personal meaning into.

There are people for whom marriage is a sanctified event with deep spiritual meaning and connotations. Who are we, "men of science", to try and take that from them?

If they try to force it down my throat, or prevent homosexuals from marriage, sure, I'm down with that fight, but just to assault someone's belief in the miracle of childbirth or the religious importance of their marriage... I can't get behind that.

kgkg
Arguing semantics is awesome.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, not to just jump right on the bash AC train, but I also really think it is tasteless for people to go around trying to "debunk" that which people put deep personal meaning into.

There are people for whom marriage is a sanctified event with deep spiritual meaning and connotations. Who are we, "men of science", to try and take that from them?

If they try to force it down my throat, or prevent homosexuals from marriage, sure, I'm down with that fight, but just to assault someone's belief in the miracle of childbirth or the religious importance of their marriage... I can't get behind that.

Almost as tasteless as continuing to reply to someone who, until now, couldn't reply back.

I am back, by the way, because Ushgarak gave me the green light to. The condition is, I'm never allowed to use my unanswered argument again in this thread. So, because there's another civil debate I was having with Dadudemon, I will respect that decision and not use it.

If anyone wishes to debate it with me further, find the post, quote it and reply to it in a PM. Perhaps you can do that, Inimalist, or would you have me reply to what you've said already, in PM?

-AC

WickedDynamite
Can we just move on...Marriage and infidelity?

Alpha Centauri
Regarding infidelity, there are two kinds of men;

Those who have the capacity to cheat before marriage, and those who have the capacity to cheat after marriage.

If you have the pangs of a cheater before hand, don't marry. After marriage, if you find yourself in a tempting situation, get out of there or as I said, confront your loved one if necessary.

I say if necessary because, to quote Batman, some people deserve more than the truth and some are willing to do that.

I know someone who was in a relationship, went to this girl's house to cheat (Was the first girl he ever considered cheating with, he'd been with his girlfriend six years), and then left without anything happening. Had he told his girlfriend this, it would have possibly cause irreversible consequences.

He didn't, and they're happier than ever, he's never been tempted again.

Personally? I'd never do that anyway, but if I did, I'd tell. I just feel that whilst cheating is wrong, there are too many variables to judge, and too many circumstantial situations to judge on how to be honest.

-AC

Dr Will Hatch
Marriage traditions and fidelity are all well and good to me. When it comes to outside affairs, I would ask my wife permission before I did it, otherwise I wouldn't bother.

I just hate that the government encourages people to marry through incentives and discourages bachelorhood through taxes.

meep-meep
I like the topic. I think it mostly has to do with the sexual excitement it brings, or the lack of it in some marriages. I know a few married women who actively **** other guys. And I also know that their hubbies know about it at some level, at least. Its an interesting dynamic, and I don't ask too many questions about it. And these women typically keep the same **** buddy or buddies over a relatively long period of time. It's pretty much like having another, more long distance, relationship that involves nothing but talking dirty and sexual adventures. Pretty simple really.

dadudemon
Well, if you want to get down to science, our biology is supposed to pair us off, at least for 2-3 years. We are not necessarily supposed to be monogamous, but we are for at least that period of time.

I'm sure of a couple of you can correctly guess as to why we are supposed to fall in love for at least 2-3 years, especially if you've read another thread I made or just read some of my posts on the topic. We are supposed to fall in love (which, is a nice "chemical" romance, as well.), mate, and stay in love for about 2 years. Shortly after the 2 year mark, the "chemical romance" starts to wear off and the relationship, in order to continue, is more up to the personalities and actions of the individuals. No longer can the couple rely on that "high" from the initial "in love" portion of the relationship. They have to work at it. Their behaviors may not change, but the motivations behind those behaviors wil.

Of course, that's just an ideal situation. Humans are such complex social creatures that we can easily go against the grain of our "chemical romance." In other words, we can f*** up a good thing by doing something stupid.


To split it up among the genders (not modern, but hunter and gatherer):

Females would prefer that the males stick around, even after the initial phase of biology runs its course. Stick around to provide for the family.

Males, especially successful ones (ones with high testosterone levels, large in stature, intelligent, etc(, will want to copulate with other females. Sure, he may settle down for a few months to a couple of years, but he will want to move on.

The females will try to keep the male as the male provides security and food. The female also desires this for her young.

Now, back to the 2-3 years item I spoke of earlier. Why does that chemical phase last that long? To ensure that there are two parents to help raise the child through the most treacherous part of their life. The first 2 years of early human's life saw the highest mortality rates. Obviously, evolution took the proper course by having those that stuck together long enough for the child to "make it over the hump." No doubt that had we not been so intelligent, we may have continued to breed that into our future species success. We could have become like parrots where the vast majority bond for life and remain close throughout that life. However, due to the intelligence that evolved, humans also become very socially complex and that really messed with just about everything that our biology tells us to do.



So, where is all of this going? Obviously, marriage.

Marriage or "life-bonds" have been around since early man. This probably arose from couples bonding beyond that 2-3 year period. Being in love is not just a chemical thing, even in the first 2-3 years. Really, we can say that marriage; or rather, pairing off; was bred into our species success. It served a function in the preservation/propogation of the species.

Now, some have suggested that marriage is archaic or antiquated. Maybe...but not really. Sure, the ceremony/ritual of marriage may be old, but the bonding of two individuals is not old. That's part of our biology.

Mindship
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, if you want to get down to science, our biology is supposed to pair us off, at least for 2-3 years. We are not necessarily supposed to be monogamous, but we are for at least that period of time.

I'm sure of a couple of you can correctly guess as to why we are supposed to fall in love for at least 2-3 years, especially if you've read another thread I made or just read some of my posts on the topic. We are supposed to fall in love (which, is a nice "chemical" romance, as well.), mate, and stay in love for about 2 years. Shortly after the 2 year mark, the "chemical romance" starts to wear off and the relationship, in order to continue, is more up to the personalities and actions of the individuals. No longer can the couple rely on that "high" from the initial "in love" portion of the relationship. They have to work at it. Their behaviors may not change, but the motivations behind those behaviors wil.

Of course, that's just an ideal situation. Humans are such complex social creatures that we can easily go against the grain of our "chemical romance." In other words, we can f*** up a good thing by doing something stupid.


To split it up among the genders (not modern, but hunter and gatherer):

Females would prefer that the males stick around, even after the initial phase of biology runs its course. Stick around to provide for the family.

Males, especially successful ones (ones with high testosterone levels, large in stature, intelligent, etc(, will want to copulate with other females. Sure, he may settle down for a few months to a couple of years, but he will want to move on.

The females will try to keep the male as the male provides security and food. The female also desires this for her young.

Now, back to the 2-3 years item I spoke of earlier. Why does that chemical phase last that long? To ensure that there are two parents to help raise the child through the most treacherous part of their life. The first 2 years of early human's life saw the highest mortality rates. Obviously, evolution took the proper course by having those that stuck together long enough for the child to "make it over the hump." No doubt that had we not been so intelligent, we may have continued to breed that into our future species success. We could have become like parrots where the vast majority bond for life and remain close throughout that life. However, due to the intelligence that evolved, humans also become very socially complex and that really messed with just about everything that our biology tells us to do.



So, where is all of this going? Obviously, marriage.

Marriage or "life-bonds" have been around since early man. This probably arose from couples bonding beyond that 2-3 year period. Being in love is not just a chemical thing, even in the first 2-3 years. Really, we can say that marriage; or rather, pairing off; was bred into our species success. It served a function in the preservation/propogation of the species.

Now, some have suggested that marriage is archaic or antiquated. Maybe...but not really. Sure, the ceremony/ritual of marriage may be old, but the bonding of two individuals is not old. That's part of our biology.
Isn't there a theory that a woman's cleavage looks like a butt to encourage face-to-face copulation (helping to strengthen the pair bond)?



smile

dadudemon
Originally posted by Mindship
Isn't there a theory that a woman's cleavage looks like a butt to encourage face-to-face copulation (helping to strengthen the pair bond)?



smile


Never heard of that one, before.


I have heard, however, that kissing comes from a need to "get in there" and exchange pheromones...which occurs at close proximity to each other's faces.


..would explain where this primate Kissing thing came from and why over 90% of humans kiss.

dixie5
Marriage and affairs... who has the time or energy for affairs??? my husband and I both work and we're always so tired we barely have the energy to wipe our [email protected]@.

dadudemon
Originally posted by dixie5
Marriage and affairs... who has the time or energy for affairs??? my husband and I both work and we're always so tired we barely have the energy to wipe our [email protected]@.

No one likes poopy buttz, that's for sure.

Mandrag Ganon
Originally posted by Blinky
IMO it's not even worth getting married these days.

Best to stay single, kept your own bank account and not have babies. People (men or women) are not capable of staying true to each other or having long term relationships.

Wow, that is a very dim view of humanity. Here's how I see it: not bringing God into the mix, marrage is still a vow of fidelity to the one you are being wedded to, to me, vows should be kept. It is an unfortunate fact that people's word is becoming less and less reliable, we are falling too much into a "look out for #1" society and promises and vows are becoming nothing less than hollow words.

And it doesn't help with some people rushing off and getting married after having dated for 2 months (Granted some relationships have worked out like that, but most fail.) that is just foolishness.

Anyway, that's my two cents, well a rushed version of it but, you get the picture...

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
A lot of foks will not agree with my opinion on this but FUDGE IT!

The fact is people don't take Marriage seriously these days. I can tell this from my family and the families of friends. There are too many single moms out there that get pregnant and expect the guy to wed them and be happy. Not the case, even worse marry another guy just so that the kid can have the father image. It may work and it may not work you're gambling 50/50 in that case.

Even worse is when people marry out of fear of been lonely. I personally think that's the reason why divorces continue to increase in our culture. People just marry out of fear of been alone and take the next thing to salvage. Now, I'm friggin 33 years old and my older aunts continue to worry about when will I tie the knot and shit. Well, sorry, ain't going to happen and when it does it will be when I know is the right time.

Love me for what I am.

Couldn't agree more.

williamanthony
Hi
The fact is people don't take Marriage seriously these days.I think that before two people get married, both should be at least 28 years old.Even worse is when people marry out of fear of been lonely. I personally think that's the reason why divorces continue to increase in our culture.

Bardock42
Originally posted by williamanthony
Hi
The fact is people don't take Marriage seriously these days.I think that before two people get married, both should be at least 28 years old.Even worse is when people marry out of fear of been lonely. I personally think that's the reason why divorces continue to increase in our culture.
Originally posted by WickedDynamite
A lot of foks will not agree with my opinion on this but FUDGE IT!

The fact is people don't take Marriage seriously these days. I can tell this from my family and the families of friends. There are too many single moms out there that get pregnant and expect the guy to wed them and be happy. Not the case, even worse marry another guy just so that the kid can have the father image. It may work and it may not work you're gambling 50/50 in that case.

Even worse is when people marry out of fear of been lonely. I personally think that's the reason why divorces continue to increase in our culture. People just marry out of fear of been alone and take the next thing to salvage. Now, I'm friggin 33 years old and my older aunts continue to worry about when will I tie the knot and shit. Well, sorry, ain't going to happen and when it does it will be when I know is the right time.

Love me for what I am.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
I think society needs to realize that everyone has urges, that everyone has the ability to hurt someone regardless of gender, and that no sex before marriage is idiotic. I think that before two people get married, both should be at least 28 years old, have had sex more than once with each other, and must be absolutely sure about their sexual orientation.



Odd.

****ing weird spammers these days.

Blinky
Hahaha wtf.

botankus
Way to pay attention, Bardock. Either that or memorize every thread, which I wouldn't put past you.

Darth Jello

Bardock42
"The gays" were at his house, were they?

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
"The gays" were at his house, were they?

By "house", he means his anus.

Steak Knife
I'm not sure it would be worth it to cheat on my wife. I would be devastated if she did that to me, so treat unto others....

Sometimes it's a bummer to think that for the rest of your life you will only hit that one piece of tail, but there are many benefits to being monogamous. I think the family I created with my wife and my daughter and our dog, Walker Texas Ranger, is worth being dedicated to because they are my peeps. I would not want to jeopardize that unit.

Darth Jello
Originally posted by Robtard
By "house", he means his anus.

I wanted to know at what point he decided that he didn't want it rammed down his through or all over his kid's face.

FistOfThe North

Robtard
-Marriage provides tax breaks for the man too; that's a good thing.

-Marriage gives the man more rights over his children, should the mother want to ****-off with the kids one day; that's a good thing.

-Marriage can provide alimony to the man from the woman. It's a two-way street.

botankus
Good point, Robby Tard. Try getting time with your kids once your life partner says "I wanna break up...Bye!" and takes off cross-country. But if you're cool with seeing your kids twice a year on her terms, maybe that's the way to go.

Robtard
Originally posted by botankus
But if you're cool with seeing your kids twice a year

Sounds like a black-guy.

PENIS-ENVY
aproved

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.