Is it even worth getting married anymore?

Started by Alpha Centauri17 pages

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it even worth getting married anymore?

Originally posted by Robtard
Indulge me...

"In general; time and effort are necessary for a successful marriage"
True or false?

"In general; time and effort are necessary for a successful relationship"
True or false?

True, true.

Indulge ME:

In general; Time and effort are necessary for a successful relationship?

True or false? I assume true.

In general; A successful relationship is necessary for marriage?

True or false?

Now: A successful relationship will still be that with or without marriage, and one that clearly isn't working, will remain so with or without marriage?

True or False?

Your question isn't all-inclusive. Time and effort are required to have a successful garden, job, or partnership in any field. Marriage is a partnership, it's not a relationship in the sense of two people dating is a relationship. It's an addition.

If relationships didn't exist, marriage wouldn't.

-AC

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it even worth getting married anymore?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
True, true.

Indulge ME:

In general; Time and effort are necessary for a successful relationship?

True or false? I assume true.

In general; A successful relationship is necessary for marriage?

True or false?

Now: A successful relationship will still be that with or without marriage, and one that clearly isn't working, will remain so with or without marriage?

True or False?

Your question isn't all-inclusive. Time and effort are required to have a successful garden, job, or partnership in any field. Marriage is a partnership, it's not a relationship.

-AC


AC, you should be a professional table turner. 😂

Nah, tried that, no good.

Plates and glasses everywhere.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nah, tried that, no good.

Plates and glasses everywhere.

-AC


ever try the thing where you yank the tablecloth out from under the plates?

Wait...you're just supposed to yank the cloth, not capsize the table?

Ahhh.

-AC

whatever the case, its all bullshit. nice way to end a perfectly good dinner.

Re: Re: Re: Is it even worth getting married anymore?

Originally posted by Robtard
1) I have no clear idea what you said with your post; further clarification please.

2) Your "sig" is great.

For searching happiness, yes. Its worth investing every bit of money time and effort for happy marriage. = The cost does not matter as long as you are happy with marriage.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it even worth getting married anymore?

Originally posted by Smiter
For searching happiness, yes. Its worth investing every bit of money time and effort for happy marriage. = The cost does not matter as long as you are happy with marriage.

nicely put.

The thread question wasn't: Is it worth maintaining marriage?

It was: Is it even worth getting married anymore?

-AC

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it even worth getting married anymore?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
True, true.

Indulge ME:

In general; Time and effort are necessary for a successful relationship?

True or false? I assume true.

In general; A successful relationship is necessary for marriage?

True or false?

Now: A successful relationship will still be that with or without marriage, and one that clearly isn't working, will remain so with or without marriage?

True or False?

Your question isn't all-inclusive. Time and effort are required to have a successful garden, job, or partnership in any field. Marriage is a partnership, it's not a relationship in the sense of two people dating is a relationship. It's an addition.

If relationships didn't exist, marriage wouldn't.

-AC

False / True

Yours isn't all inclusive either as a marriage is a type of relationship as 'Partnership' and 'Relationship' virtually go hand in hand... If you have a partnership with someone, be it platonic, business, sexual or other; you also have some manner of relationship with them.

Actually, if your defining "relationship" [?] here as physical/emotional/couple you're absolutely wrong. As I noted long ago, people get married for different reasons, one reason is profit; i.e. a man/woman agreeing to marry another to transfer citizenship rights to the other. I personally know a woman who married a gay Dutch man because he pays her monthly until he's a U.S. citizen. They absolute do not have a relationship as defined by "dating"; the only time they physically meet is during the immigrating interviews.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The thread question wasn't: Is it worth maintaining marriage?

It was: Is it even worth getting married anymore?

-AC

Originally posted by Robtard
You know, we've completely gone off-topic, the topic was "is it worth getting married anymore" and quite simply; it is. If (and only if) you intend on living with someone the rest of your life and especially if you intend on having kids, marriage would only serve as a plus due to certain rights and privileges that a marriage gives you. It doesn't mean two life-mates need to get married, but the benefits do make it worthwhile.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The thread question wasn't: Is it worth maintaining marriage?

It was: Is it even worth getting married anymore?

-AC

Yes it is worth getting married. What do you do after marriage? well? You maintain it. dur

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it even worth getting married anymore?

Originally posted by Robtard
False / True

Yours isn't all inclusive either as a marriage is a type of relationship as 'Partnership' and 'Relationship' virtually go hand in hand... If you have a partnership with someone, be it platonic, business, sexual or other; you also have some manner of relationship with them.

VIRTUALLY, as in, not much difference but it is there, like Ryu and Ken.

Relationship in the sense of long-term bf/gf is more than just a partnership. Marriage is just a joint-act, a partnership that is coupled with a successful relationship.

So marriage, if you want to call it a relationship, is nothing more than a legal one. It's a legal one in addition to the emotional one.

Originally posted by Robtard
Actually, if your defining "relationship" [?] here as physical/emotional/couple you're absolutely wrong. As I noted long ago, people get married for different reasons, one reason is profit; i.e. a man/woman agreeing to marry another to transfer citizenship rights to the other. I personally know a woman who married a gay Dutch man because he pays her monthly until he's a U.S. citizen. They absolute do not have a relationship as defined by "dating"; the only time they physically meet is during the immigrating interviews.

Precisely my point, though.

Do they love each other? If so, it's an emotional relationship. Marriage isn't making their love stronger, it's an extreme circumstance. When they are together in the same country, marriage simply won't be adding anything. It's not "adding" anything now.

-AC

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it even worth getting married anymore?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
VIRTUALLY, as in, not much difference but it is there, like Ryu and Ken.

Relationship in the sense of long-term bf/gf is more than just a partnership. Marriage is just a joint-act, a partnership that is coupled with a successful relationship.

So marriage, if you want to call it a relationship, is nothing more than a legal one. It's a legal one in addition to the emotional one.

Precisely my point, though.

Do they love each other? If so, it's an emotional relationship. Marriage isn't making their love stronger, it's an extreme circumstance. When they are together in the same country, marriage simply won't be adding anything. It's not "adding" anything now.

-AC

Correct, similar but different, that's why I said "marriage is a type of relationship", not marriage is the the definition of a relationship.

Again. I never argued that marriage WILL add something as fact, merely that it can depending on the people involved.

The very fact that it depends on the people proves that it's the people's interpretation and reaction to marriage that you are focusing on.

Not marriage in and of itself. The marriage contract is the same for everyone. If it had the ability to add to a relationship by itself, simply by being carried out, it would be the same for everyone.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The very fact that it depends on the people proves that it's the people's interpretation and reaction to marriage that you are focusing on.

Not marriage in and of itself. The marriage contract is the same for everyone. If it had the ability to add to a relationship by itself, simply by being carried out, it would be the same for everyone.

-AC

No, I am saying marriage can effect people differently, that is all. I am not definitively saying marriage will or will not do anything to someone; as I can't speak for others.

Again, "different strokes for different folks".

You know, we've gone full circle [yet again] and we've veered off topic [yet again]. Want to go back to the topic?

Yes, but you're not looking at the specifics.

Just because different people react differently to marriage, doesn't mean that it is the LITERAL legality that is doing it, it's not. If it had that kind of power, everyone would feel the same. People react differently TO marriage depending on who they are. It's not marriage having an affect, it's them having a reaction.

Like a joke on tv; It isn't inherently offensive, but some might be offended. The joke doesn't change, it's always the same, it's PEOPLE. Same with marriage. It's always the same, it has no capacity to add.

As for "topic"; We've just about discussed that. Being worth it is subjective, but logical is another matter, which it isn't.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, but you're not looking at the specifics.

Just because different people react differently to marriage, doesn't mean that it is the LITERAL legality that is doing it, it's not. If it had that kind of power, everyone would feel the same. People react differently TO marriage depending on who they are. It's not marriage having an affect, it's them having a reaction.

Like a joke on tv; It isn't inherently offensive, but some might be offended. The joke doesn't change, it's always the same, it's PEOPLE. Same with marriage. It's always the same, it has no capacity to add.

As for "topic"; We've just about discussed that. Being worth it is subjective, but logical is another matter, which it isn't.

-AC

We're circling yet still and it's getting old... take that as you will. It's 9:38 pm on a Saturday night and I'm going out for some fun. I can't say I won't be posting here for certain, but at the moment; I'm done.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, somehow reminding us. Did I explicitly say that he runs around screaming it, or that it was a negative? No. I merely said that his posts are a reminder to me (and others possibly) that he is gay.

I don't care that he's gay.

You did not state that his posts inadvertently act as a reminder to others that he is a homosexual, but that he cannot post without reminding others that he is a homosexual:

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
. . . you can't seem to post without somehow reminding us that you are homosexual. If we discuss music; you bring up Elton John, if we discuss discrimination; homosexuality. Even your avatar is one of the world's most famous gay actors.

Would you like to do any more back peddling?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, and what's your point? Read my above post.

Read the above response.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Don't say someone is a better musician because they sell a lot of records and get lots of praise. By that crummy rationale, 50 Cent is better than most bands.

If you want to debate music, come to the MuDF.

I did not state that he is a good musician because he sells a large number of albums, but that he sells a large number of albums because he is a good musician.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Danny Carey, comparitively, is a better musician than Elton John. Maynard has a better and more powerful vocal range, the list goes on.

What is the objective criteria being used to make that determination? After you have identified it, by all means, list on.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So? Again, read my post above. It's incidental? Fine. That doesn't mean that McKellen being gay, being someone Capt (A gay man) likes, and being in his avatar cannot remind me that Capt is gay.

Stop being so defensive.

Read my first response.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I never once said he liked them because they were gay.

So, you two can go away, read my posts, read the large one I posted before this, and then realise that you don't have to be upset or frustrated. Ok? Ok good. You run along and do that now.

-AC

I did not state that is the case. I stated that you making those associations when he does not is indicative of his sexual orientation being more of an issue to you than it is to him.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That would be Adam_PoE.

He would have beaten Skeletor (Me), but Skeletor made a vague remark that Adam misintepreted, thus storming off leaving KMC's version of Eternia in ruins, while ranting incoherently with a baseless argument based on nothing.

-AC

I did not “storm off.” I simply had more important things to do than to post on a message board intermittently over the course of six hours. I am sorry that you did not.

Moreover, even if we presume that you made a vague statement and that I misinterpreted it, who is the one who is foolish; the one who draws a false conclusion based on ambiguous premises, or the one who fails to properly structure his premises with respect to accent and amphiboly so that they will not be misinterpreted?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You did not state that his posts inadvertently act as a reminder to others that he is a homosexual, but that he cannot post without reminding others that he is a homosexual:

Would you like to do any more back peddling?

I said he can't post without reminding people, precisely. I said the correct thing. What YOU failed to do was ask for me to specify how he reminds me, or people. You didn't did you? You chose to assume that part. So once again, you're wrong. Bystanders have already said that my posts were simply being read into too much.

Accept that you got it wrong, because you factually did. It's a fact because I know what I meant, and what I meant isn't what you CLAIM I meant.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Read the above response.

Haha, you're still wrong. Nothing I said was incorrect. He does remind me that he's gay with every post. You simply failed to ask why, you assumed.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did not state that he is a good musician because he sells a large number of albums, but that he sells a large number of albums because he is a good musician.

I agree, he's a good musician. Why do you feel you can ask me not to speak matter-of-factly about music and then make such a sweeping, generalising claim as saying Tool have never proven themselves to be better musicians? The correct thing you should say is "I have seen nothing that proves to me, that Tool are better musicians.".

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What is the objective criteria being used to make that determination? After you have identified it, by all means, list on.

Ability on one's instrument. If you transfered Elton John's piano talent to drums, he wouldn't be as good as Danny Carey.

Danny Carey has garnered more technical praise over the years for his innovative and technically flawless playing than Elton John has for his. Elton John is a very good pianist because he was trained, but he's not innovative by any means. He doesn't play in a way that didn't exist before and hasn't existed since. There are concert pianists better than Elton John. There are more people in his field better than him than there are drummers better than Danny Carey.

Danny Carey plays in such a way that no drummer ever did, has or probably will. Playing in a fibonnaci time signature? Yeah, I'm sure Elton could nail that one. Either way, I will open a thread in the Music Discussion forum and you can reply to this part of the post there.

Do you wish for me to do this? If, of course, this is something you wish to discuss. I mean, if you are going to keep coming back and dragging this thread off topic then at least do so in a manner that doesn't belong in entirely the wrong forum. I referenced a musician, but if you wish to discuss music, come to the Music Discussion forum and we'll continue this.

I trust you're not afraid to, so shall I open a thread or not?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Read my first response.

Yeah, you assumed and got it wrong. You're reading far too much into this, as previously noticed by other members.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did not state that is the case. I stated that you making those associations when he does not is indicative of his sexual orientation being more of an issue to you than it is to him.

Indicative? Clearly he is, whether or not he is intentionally is another matter. You say he isn't, he says he isn't, fine, I never BELIEVED otherwise. I said he merely reminds me that he is gay with every post, not that he does so intentionally. YOU assumed that and now you're continuing because you simply cannot accept the fact that you read too much into it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did not “storm off.” I simply had more important things to do than to post on a message board intermittently over the course of six hours. I am sorry that you did not.

Consider the time difference. There was nothing to do anyway by the time I was posting. It takes me minutes to post, seconds sometimes. I'm still trying to figure out why you and Capt feel the need to somehow weave a personal, presumptuous dig into your posts, while out of the other side of your mouthes, accuse me of having to insult.

Either way, no, you clearly just came back hours later when the thread had moved on, when your friend had been proven wrong to the point of shame, and kick started the debate, didn't you? That's much better...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Moreover, even if we presume that you made a vague statement and that I misinterpreted it, who is the one who is foolish; the one who draws a false conclusion based on ambiguous premises, or the one who fails to properly structure his premises with respect to accent and amphiboly so that they will not be misinterpreted?

The one who misinterprets. I knew what I meant, it was obvious what I mean considering the fact that I explicitly said I DON'T think he goes around saying it. So, the fact that I said he doesn't say it proves that I don't believe he is intentionally indicative of his sexuality, as you insist I believed he was, and have since proven you wrong.

So who's the bigger fool? The fool who is wrong, so blatantly, and admits it, or the one who, despite overwhelming proof, explanation and evidence, does not concede that he is wrong?

Just look at what's happening; He posts, I reply and prove him wrong, prove he misintepreted me, so he launches a tirade of insulting and dramatic posts. You post, misinterpret AGAIN and I confirm that you were wrong to do so, and wrong IN doing so.

That's what happened, Adam. You misinterpreted my post. Whether you believe it's my fault for being too vague, or whatever, you misintepreted it one way or the other. That's why we're here. Why you can't just accept you made a mistake and move on is beyond me.

-AC