Gay marriages....now what about siblings parents or animals?

[Grainne Ni Malley]

Or, as in my situation, an annulment because the other part was still married to someone else! There are a whole slew of varying factors as to why marriages dissolve.

Frankly, I still don't see what's wrong with, "we don't want to be with each other anymore."

Denying two people who say that a separation is authoritarian. Which you would think Llamalandia would oppose seeing as he, "hates government."

I don't see anything particularly wrong with that, but I do get the point of not entering into marriages whimsically, or leaving one in the same manner. Especially if children are involved as it has a heavy effect on kids. I do think couples should try. People really shouldn't be tossed about if it can be avoided. However, when trying fails go your merry ways, I say.

As to the latter, frankly I have no idea. *shrugs*

[Llamalandia]

Not a certain religion any religion and show me where in the constitution you have a right to marriage at all (though I concede one might able to argue it on the basis of first amendment freedom of association grounds). Also the govt doesn't give you rights your rights are inherent as a human being and are natural rights. You can wear a ring and say your married all you want I can't stop you nor can nor should the govt or anyone else church be able to stop you though again I point out until the last couple hundred years marriage has been a religious thing not a secular one.

Oh my gods, rights aren't inherent.

Yes they are or they aren't really rights they are privileges!

[AiliailiA]

Llamalandia, would you also allow (in your preferred form of marriage) a divorce or annulment in cases where one partner turns out to be infertile?

See, what I'm thinking is that the other partner had no way of knowing that when they entered the marriage. Yes, maybe they could adopt, or maybe they could arrange to have the woman impregnated by someone else (with or without sex) or if it's the woman who's infertile, arrange some kind of surrogacy. But isn't it reasonable to think that when getting married they considered later having children, and may well NOT have got married if they'd known that a child biologically related to both of them wasn't possible?

Also, what about incest. I presume you oppose marriage for incestuous couples. Would divorce be acceptable if a couple find out AFTER getting married that they are close blood relatives? This does happen.

Or, as in my situation, an annulment because the other party was still married to someone else! There are a whole slew of varying factors as to why marriages dissolve.

Right. In an annulment, the marriage is considered never to have taken place?

I hope they gave you your $50 back

[Pillea]

Oh my gods, rights aren't inherent.

Yes they are or they aren't really rights they are privileges!

If rights are inherent they cannot be taken away. They're permanent.
I guarantee you they can be taken away.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

Or, as in my situation, an annulment because the other part was still married to someone else! There are a whole slew of varying factors as to why marriages dissolve.

Right I would include that in obvious exceptions the same as allowed under Catholic canon law (just referencing for convenience because I know the most about it vs other religious doctrines). Also I believe one must be able to consummate a marriage for it to really be valid in the eyes of the church, if I'm not mistaken annulment can also be granted on grounds of non-consumation but not on mere failure to produce a male heir like Henry VIII who created the CoE rather than just secularizing marriage so he could get a divorce.

Okay, see that part I don't get at all. Why should two people have to fuck for marriage to be valid? Really, that one seems like a shot in the dark. Who came up with that? What was the purpose? Providing an heir? That really doesn't apply to everyone nowadays. Of course couples in a marriage are probably going to have sex, but if not why on earth does that even have anything to do with the legality of marriage anymore?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Oh my gods, rights aren't inherent.

Yes they are or they aren't really rights they are privileges!

They can most certainly be taken away. You don't have inherent rights. Your ''rights'' are those granted by your society. And that society can revoke them at any point. To think otherwise is, frankly, very naive or so idealistic you once again stray into the realm of naivete.

[Anachronous Rex]

Frankly, I still don't see what's wrong with, "we don't want to be with each other anymore."

Denying two people who say that a separation is authoritarian. Which you would think Llamalandia would oppose seeing as he, "hates government."

I don't see anything particularly wrong with that, but I do get the point of not entering into marriages whimsically, or leaving one in the same manner. Especially if children are involved as it has a heavy effect on kids. I do think couples should try. People really shouldn't be tossed about if it can be avoided. However, when trying fails go your merry ways, I say.

As to the latter, frankly I have no idea. *shrugs*

Well of course you are completely right that these things should be taken seriously. Which, I guess, is probably why I find myself unduly outraged at Llamalandias stance, as it seems so obviously, strenuously, disconnected from reality and its consequences.

But enough about that... how are you? I'm doing well. A bit tired though, I may call it quits soon.

[Llamalandia]

Frankly, I still don't see what's wrong with, "we don't want to be with each other anymore."

Denying two people who say that a separation is authoritarian. Which you would think Llamalandia would oppose seeing as he, "hates government."

I don't see anything particularly wrong with that, but I do get the point of not entering into marriages whimsically, or leaving one in the same manner. Especially if children are involved as it has a heavy effect on kids. I do think couples should try. People really shouldn't be tossed about if it can be avoided. However, when trying fails go your merry ways, I say.

As to the latter, frankly I have no idea. *shrugs*

I simply disagree and personally believe divorce is worse for kids, but I'm sure peer reviewed studies would likely show me to be incorrect. I also feel couples in these modern times give up way way too easily, I mean women used to stay married to wife beaters (not saying this shouldn't change just pointing out fact) because they were so committed to marriage and avoiding being a divorcee and felt it was best for the children to stay together despite actual physical abuse. Now people cite boredom as an irreconcilable difference to justify divorce and that is just not cool with me.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

Or, as in my situation, an annulment because the other party was still married to someone else! There are a whole slew of varying factors as to why marriages dissolve.

Right. In an annulment, the marriage is considered never to have taken place?

I hope they gave you your $50 back

I would have paid $50 bucks to be done with the whole mess by that point. And yes, technically I took a big eraser to my marriage. I can claim that I have never been legally married. But I did make him pay all the annulment fees, which was a bit more than $50.

[Llamalandia]

I don't see anything particularly wrong with that, but I do get the point of not entering into marriages whimsically, or leaving one in the same manner. Especially if children are involved as it has a heavy effect on kids. I do think couples should try. People really shouldn't be tossed about if it can be avoided. However, when trying fails go your merry ways, I say.

As to the latter, frankly I have no idea. *shrugs*

Well of course you are completely right that these things should be taken seriously. Which, I guess, is probably why I find myself unduly outraged at Llamalandias stance, as it seems so obviously, strenuously, disconnected from reality and its consequences.

But enough about that... how are you? I'm doing well. A bit tired though, I may call it quits soon.

I don't believe it's disconnected from my reality or lived experiences it is in my opinion that every one I have known would have been better off in a loving two parent family than in a broken home is all.

[Individuality-ness]

I'm an atheist. I should have the right to get married somewhere that isn't a church. Marriage should remain secular, so that it's equal for everyone, and not just restricted to those who have large amounts of money or who belong to a certain religion.

Not a certain religion any religion and show me where in the constitution you have a right to marriage at all

Ninth Amendment, just because a specific right isn't explicitly listed the Constitution does not mean that you do not have that right.

(though I concede one might able to argue it on the basis of first amendment freedom of association grounds).

That's mostly in regards to right to protest in large groups, or to be a member of groups of people.

Also the govt doesn't give you rights

They're the ones enforcing those rights, so yes they're giving me those rights.

your rights are inherent as a human being and are natural rights.

No they're not. Today the state grants me the right to get an abortion. Tomorrow some women in North Dakota or somewhere are going to be denied that right because of misogynistic neoconservatives who can't seem to get their heads out of our vaginas.

Also, I do not have the inherent right to live, if I commit a heinous crime I could be assigned the death penalty. I do not have the inherent right to not be offended, free speech. I do not have the inherent right to free speech in all circumstances, I can't preach in government offices and I can't scream "fire" in a crowded theater.

You can wear a ring and say your married all you want I can't stop you nor can nor should the govt or anyone else church be able to stop you

They won't, but that's because it's not their business.

though again I point out until the last couple hundred years marriage has been a religious thing not a secular one.

See: Code of Hammurabi, first written code of laws ever. Babylon, Mesopotamia, dates from way back in 1772 BCE. Marriage was a secular institution even then and they had laws allowing for divorce and marriage rights. Your argument holds no water.

[Pillea]

Well of course you are completely right that these things should be taken seriously. Which, I guess, is probably why I find myself unduly outraged at Llamalandias stance, as it seems so obviously, strenuously, disconnected from reality and its consequences.

But enough about that... how are you? I'm doing well. A bit tired though, I may call it quits soon.

I don't believe it's disconnected from my reality or lived experiences it is in my opinion that every one I have known would have been better off in a loving two parent family than in a broken home is all.

Two parents, who actually have a hostile marriage, is a broken home.

[Anachronous Rex]

I don't believe it's disconnected from my reality or lived experiences it is in my opinion that every one I have known would have been better off in a loving two parent family than in a broken home is all.

Two parents, who actually have a hostile marriage, is a broken home.

This. A thousand times this.

Frankly, it was much nicer having two parents who loved me, and were far away from each other.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I don't see anything particularly wrong with that, but I do get the point of not entering into marriages whimsically, or leaving one in the same manner. Especially if children are involved as it has a heavy effect on kids. I do think couples should try. People really shouldn't be tossed about if it can be avoided. However, when trying fails go your merry ways, I say.

As to the latter, frankly I have no idea. *shrugs*

I simply disagree and personally believe divorce is worse for kids, but I'm sure peer reviewed studies would likely show me to be incorrect. I also feel couples in these modern times give up way way too easily, I mean women used to stay married to wife beaters (not saying this shouldn't change just pointing out fact) because they were so committed to marriage and avoiding being a divorcee and felt it was best for the children to stay together despite actual physical abuse. Now people cite boredom as an irreconcilable difference to justify divorce and that is just not cool with me.

I disagree with the bold. They didn't stay married because they were committed to marriage. They did because they were afraid of the social stigma.

Thankfully, that stigma, at least in the west, is not as prevalent as it used to be.

And you are correct in saying peer reviewed studies will show you're wrong because, I am certain you are more than wrong.

[Brain Hand]

This is why I am pro-gay marriage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8

Edit: And this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoMb40H ... =fvwp&NR=1

[Person012345]

Oh my gods, rights aren't inherent.

Yes they are or they aren't really rights they are privileges!

Would you say you have the inherent natural right to life?

[Grainne Ni Malley]

I don't see anything particularly wrong with that, but I do get the point of not entering into marriages whimsically, or leaving one in the same manner. Especially if children are involved as it has a heavy effect on kids. I do think couples should try. People really shouldn't be tossed about if it can be avoided. However, when trying fails go your merry ways, I say.

As to the latter, frankly I have no idea. *shrugs*

Well of course you are completely right that these things should be taken seriously. Which, I guess, is probably why I find myself unduly outraged at Llamalandias stance, as it seems so obviously, strenuously, disconnected from reality and its consequences.

But enough about that... how are you? I'm doing well. A bit tired though, I may call it quits soon.

There does seem to be a bit of disconnect from the real world in his stance, but I understand the points he is trying to make as far as it being in the ultimate best interest of children involved to make a marriage work if at all possible. It's not to say single parents don't do a kick-ass job of raising kids. I am one. Alas, it would have been much easier on my son if I hadn't dragged him through one failed relationship after another. That's not to say I should have never left my partner/s. More like I should have mad far wiser choices in life.

Otherwise, I am good. Waiting to see if my cancer is still in remission is like holding my breath inside a balloon, but other than that I am quite good thank you. If you do call it quits have yourself a peaceful night.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

I simply disagree and personally believe divorce is worse for kids, but I'm sure peer reviewed studies would likely show me to be incorrect. I also feel couples in these modern times give up way way too easily, I mean women used to stay married to wife beaters (not saying this shouldn't change just pointing out fact) because they were so committed to marriage and avoiding being a divorcee and felt it was best for the children to stay together despite actual physical abuse. Now people cite boredom as an irreconcilable difference to justify divorce and that is just not cool with me.

I disagree with the bold. They didn't stay married because they were committed to marriage. They did because they were afraid of the social stigma.

Thankfully, that stigma, at least in the west, is not as prevalent as it used to be.

And you are correct in saying peer reviewed studies will show you're wrong because, I am certain you are more than wrong.

Also, take into context the psychological effects on a person in an abusive relationship. Many stay because they feel they have no other choice. I think it has a lot less to do with social stigma, or commitment and more to do with feeling trapped.

Often the methods of an abuser are so manipulative as to come off as charming as can be, then methodically separate all sources of support such as family and friends, manipulate the victim into thinking he/she is worthless without the partner in question, and otherwise remove any form of independence so that the victim often sincerely believes there is no escape. It's quite tragic really.

[AiliailiA]

I simply disagree and personally believe divorce is worse for kids, but I'm sure peer reviewed studies would likely show me to be incorrect. I also feel couples in these modern times give up way way too easily, I mean women used to stay married to wife beaters (not saying this shouldn't change just pointing out fact) because they were so committed to marriage and avoiding being a divorcee and felt it was best for the children to stay together despite actual physical abuse. Now people cite boredom as an irreconcilable difference to justify divorce and that is just not cool with me.

I disagree with the bold. They didn't stay married because they were committed to marriage. They did because they were afraid of the social stigma.

How about poverty? Such work as women were even allowed to do didn't pay enough to live on. Maybe she had parents she could move back with, but not necessarily.

Remember that Llamalandia's ideal world isn't even in last century. It's two centuries ago.

[Llamalandia]

Well of course you are completely right that these things should be taken seriously. Which, I guess, is probably why I find myself unduly outraged at Llamalandias stance, as it seems so obviously, strenuously, disconnected from reality and its consequences.

But enough about that... how are you? I'm doing well. A bit tired though, I may call it quits soon.

There does seem to be a bit of disconnect from the real world in his stance, but I understand the points he is trying to make as far as it being in the ultimate best interest of children involved to make a marriage work if at all possible. It's not to say single parents don't do a kick-ass job of raising kids. I am one. Alas, it would have been much easier on my son if I hadn't dragged him through one failed relationship after another. That's not to say I should have never left my partner/s. More like I should have mad far wiser choices in life.

Otherwise, I am good. Waiting to see if my cancer is still in remission is like holding my breath inside a balloon, but other than that I am quite good thank you. If you do call it quits have yourself a peaceful night.

Sorry to here about the potential cancer that sucks thoughts and prayers with you.

While I agree that some single parents do do a very good job, unfortunately these heroic individuals are too few and far between in my opinion and I do know for a fact that children on average do better in a two parent household (regardless gay/straight issue) than children of one parent. Just the sad reality that I believe needs to end. People should be married then have kids and stay married at the very least for the children (again barring spousal abuse etc.) . I realize not all single parents are single by choice and I do believe society in general has an especial duty to support them if for no other reason than society's self-interest in having a child raised as well adjusted and well educated member of said society who will grow up to be a positive contribution.

[Immoren]

I'm an atheist. I should have the right to get married somewhere that isn't a church. Marriage should remain secular, so that it's equal for everyone, and not just restricted to those who have large amounts of money or who belong to a certain religion.

Not a certain religion any religion and show me where in the constitution you have a right to marriage at all (though I concede one might able to argue it on the basis of first amendment freedom of association grounds). Also the govt doesn't give you rights your rights are inherent as a human being and are natural rights. You can wear a ring and say your married all you want I can't stop you nor can nor should the govt or anyone else church be able to stop you though again I point out until the last couple hundred years marriage has been a religious thing not a secular one.

because there aren't anyother legal sources than constitutions

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I disagree with the bold. They didn't stay married because they were committed to marriage. They did because they were afraid of the social stigma.

Thankfully, that stigma, at least in the west, is not as prevalent as it used to be.

And you are correct in saying peer reviewed studies will show you're wrong because, I am certain you are more than wrong.

Also, take into context the psychological effects on a person in an abusive relationship. Many stay because they feel they have no other choice. I think it has a lot less to do with social stigma, or commitment and more to do with feeling trapped.

Often the methods of an abuser are so manipulative as to come off as charming as can be, then methodically separate all sources of support such as family and friends, manipulate the victim into thinking he/she is worthless without the partner in question, and otherwise remove any form of independence so that the victim often sincerely believes there is no escape. It's quite tragic really.

There's that too, of course. Many do stay because they feel trapped and also because the abuser coerces them in ways that are terrible. Like, in the events of children in the middle, the threat to take them away and prevent her from seeing them. Slander. So many factors.

I disagree with the bold. They didn't stay married because they were committed to marriage. They did because they were afraid of the social stigma.

How about poverty? Such work as women were even allowed to do didn't pay enough to live on. Maybe she had parents she could move back with, but not necessarily.

Remember that Llamalandia's ideal world isn't even in last century. It's two centuries ago.

That I'm sure factored in. I was merely pointing out the erroneous assumption Llamalandia has that these women stayed with abusive spouses because they were committed to marriage. In most cases, it was a combination of factors, not a commitment to an abusive relationship.

His disconnect is absurd. Not bordering absurdity but fully in it.

[Llamalandia]

I disagree with the bold. They didn't stay married because they were committed to marriage. They did because they were afraid of the social stigma.

Thankfully, that stigma, at least in the west, is not as prevalent as it used to be.

And you are correct in saying peer reviewed studies will show you're wrong because, I am certain you are more than wrong.

Also, take into context the psychological effects on a person in an abusive relationship. Many stay because they feel they have no other choice. I think it has a lot less to do with social stigma, or commitment and more to do with feeling trapped.

Often the methods of an abuser are so manipulative as to come off as charming as can be, then methodically separate all sources of support such as family and friends, manipulate the victim into thinking he/she is worthless without the partner in question, and otherwise remove any form of independence so that the victim often sincerely believes there is no escape. It's quite tragic really.

I was merely illustrating the point of how deadly serious marriage was taken by society even just 60 years ago not arguin that women (or men) should stay in physically abusive relationships for any reason, though I do believe in very rare instances an abuser can be forgiven and reconciliation can occur but only after separation. Again not arguing that abusive marriage should be perpetuated by societal shame just showing that it used to be and if even abuse wasn't considered sufficient to end a marriage then these unreconcialable differences cited today would never have even made it past the court house step; it would have been utterly laughable. It seems are far cry from where we are today.

[The Batorys]

Well of course you are completely right that these things should be taken seriously. Which, I guess, is probably why I find myself unduly outraged at Llamalandias stance, as it seems so obviously, strenuously, disconnected from reality and its consequences.

But enough about that... how are you? I'm doing well. A bit tired though, I may call it quits soon.

I don't believe it's disconnected from my reality or lived experiences it is in my opinion that every one I have known would have been better off in a loving two parent family than in a broken home is all.

Loving families are not usually the ones that are broken up via divorce.

[Individuality-ness]

though I do believe in very rare instances an abuser can be forgiven and reconciliation can occur but only after separation.

Okay everyone, we can go home now, we just hit rock bottom!