Marriage and Affairs

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?

😍

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.

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

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.

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

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:

Unless humans make a massive leap towards a social utopia, there's really no way around these agreements being necessary.

If marriage didn't exist, would you invent it?[/B]

No. I'm not an innovator, I'm an improver. 😄

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.

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 [/B]

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)

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. 😄

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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:

Unless humans make a massive leap towards a social utopia, there's really no way around these agreements being necessary.

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:

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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).

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

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.