What is your thought on marriage?

[Genivaria]

I will not date anyone until marriage.

....marriage isn't dating.

[The New California Republic]

I will not date anyone until marriage.

What do you mean by that? Do you mean that you will not date anyone up to the marriage stage, or do you mean you will not start dating someone until you are married?

[Twilight Imperium]

I will not date anyone until marriage.

"I will not eat this egg before I see it turn into a chicken."

Dude, what?

[The New California Republic]

I will not date anyone until marriage.

"I will not eat this egg before I see it turn into a chicken."

Dude, what?

That is similar to the interpretation I made, which is why I am so confused by it.

[Partybus]

Marriage is an expensive way to find out you hate someone.

/thread

LOL, I once dated a woman who annoyed me to the point that I thought "this might be the one..."

Unfortunately, it turned out she didn't annoy me as much as I thought

[Keshiland]

You seem to think that with-holding property is not abuse. Wrong

No its not, even if its to stop someone from having the all mighty abortion. Is it an underhaded tacktic yes, abuseive no.

You seem to think that restricting freedom of movement is not abuse. Wrong.

Restricting movement? By not sharing MY car? because I don't want MY car being used for something that I am against? not abusive. She can use public transportation or ask a friend or family member to take her to the clinic if it is too personal for her to ask someone else to take her their then not my problem thats on her.

You seem to think that shouting at your spouse is not abuse. Wrong.

Shouting at anyone for safety reasons is not abusive. I guess if someone is about to run out into the road and get hit buy a car for not looking, to yell at them STOP would be abusive by that logic

You seem to think that arbitrarily and unilaterally denying visitation by the grandparents because they disagree with you is not abuse. Wrong.

Not letting my child/ren visit bigoted grandparnets because they voted for Trump or religiously watch faux news is not abuse.

You seem to think that arbitrarily divorcing your wife when the kids reach 18, for no reason other than "you are bored" is not abuse. Wrong.

I have the right to devorce for what ever reason I want, is it potentially hurtful, yes, abusive not in the slightest.

You seem to think that belittling your wife in front of friends and family by saying she is planning on having an abortion is not abuse. Wrong.

If by belittling you mean telling everyone we are expecting when she is still on the fence. Not abuside, underhanded yes, calculated yes, abusive no.

You seem to think that treating your wife as a baby making and rearing machine is not abuse. Wrong.

Getting married to have kids and not for the love of a woman is not abusive especally if she knows why I got married or has the same view.

You seem to think that you being the only one that makes up the household rules, and giving your wife no say in the matter is not abuse. Wrong.

Did I say I would be the only one no, I said with guns cigs and abortion, if she really wants a gun in MY house with little kids around or if she wants to smoke in My house I have the right to say no. If she wants an abortion and wants to use MY car to get their I have the right to say no. None of this is abusive.

There is a long train of things that you think is not abuse, but actually is. It would be an abusive marriage, no matter which angle you look at it from. So no, I have not "exaggerated the meaning of abuse", it is in fact you that has grossly understated the meaning of abuse.

I don't know what englands laws about abuse are but no one else on this thread agrees with you that this is abusive. Plain and simple.

[Galloism]

Ok, I'll bite. How is withholding property abuse?

It is abuse when he withholds property to pressure his wife to not get an abortion. See the abortion thread for the details.

Hmm.

Let's suppose I withhold property to pressure my nephew to go into the military. I'll write him out of the will unless he spends 2 weeks in military. Is that abuse?

How is divorcing abuse?


I mean, it's kind of being shitty, but I'm not sure "refusing to take positive action" is abuse.

The divorce is pre-planned by Keshiland, the way in which Keshiland does it when the kids reach 18, and arbitrarily split the household up for selfish reasons could be seen as abusive. It isn't just a run-of-the-mill divorce in this case, there is something highly unusual and irregular going on here. I don't know how to precisely define it, abuse is the closest thing I think that it amounts to.

I don't think "refusing to continue to live with someone" can be constituted abuse. You're saying that if someone fails to take positive action to give someone something, it's abusive. That's hard to square with individual freedom.

I'm not sure that's accurate.

[Internationalist Bastard]

It is abuse when he withholds property to pressure his wife to not get an abortion. See the abortion thread for the details.

Hmm.

Let's suppose I withhold property to pressure my nephew to go into the military. I'll write him out of the will unless he spends 2 weeks in military. Is that abuse?

The divorce is pre-planned by Keshiland, the way in which Keshiland does it when the kids reach 18, and arbitrarily split the household up for selfish reasons could be seen as abusive. It isn't just a run-of-the-mill divorce in this case, there is something highly unusual and irregular going on here. I don't know how to precisely define it, abuse is the closest thing I think that it amounts to.

I don't think "refusing to continue to live with someone" can be constituted abuse. You're saying that if someone fails to take positive action to give someone something, it's abusive. That's hard to square with individual freedom.

I'm not sure that's accurate.

I dunno about abuse, but it's fucked up

[Galloism]

Hmm.

Let's suppose I withhold property to pressure my nephew to go into the military. I'll write him out of the will unless he spends 2 weeks in military. Is that abuse?


I don't think "refusing to continue to live with someone" can be constituted abuse. You're saying that if someone fails to take positive action to give someone something, it's abusive. That's hard to square with individual freedom.

I'm not sure that's accurate.

I dunno about abuse, but it's fucked up

Sure, but we shouldn't throw around the word "abuse" too lightly, or it loses any relevant meaning.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I dunno about abuse, but it's fucked up

Sure, but we shouldn't throw around the word "abuse" too lightly, or it loses any relevant meaning.

Fair enough, I suppose

[Sovaal]

I will not date anyone until marriage.

So is it going to be an arranged marriage? The will you date other people?

[Jraden]

I see nothing wrong with marriage. It should be a union between two in love that tells the world they stay together for life. But some people don't realize it's significance and aren't prepared for it. If you don't want to get married than don't get married. Simple as that.

[The New California Republic]

no one else on this thread agrees with you that this is abusive. Plain and simple.

They didn't disagree with all of my points, just a few.

Let's suppose I withhold property to pressure my nephew to go into the military. I'll write him out of the will unless he spends 2 weeks in military. Is that abuse?

Conceded.

I don't think "refusing to continue to live with someone" can be constituted abuse. You're saying that if someone fails to take positive action to give someone something, it's abusive. That's hard to square with individual freedom.

Also conceded. As someone else just said, it is just "fucked up".

The other points I made stand for the time being.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I see nothing wrong with marriage. It should be a union between two in love that tells the world they stay together for life. But some people don't realize it's significance and aren't prepared for it. If you don't want to get married than don't get married. Simple as that.

That feel when your polygamist

[Jraden]

I see nothing wrong with marriage. It should be a union between two in love that tells the world they stay together for life. But some people don't realize it's significance and aren't prepared for it. If you don't want to get married than don't get married. Simple as that.

That feel when your polygamist

See. I've got nothing wrong with polygamy. It's prudish to be against it. I just think that marriage should be with two people in love, and polymarous relationships will make marriage complicated, and poly people should just not bother with it because its simpler.

[Internationalist Bastard]

That feel when your polygamist

See. I've got nothing wrong with polygamy. It's prudish to be against it. I just think that marriage should be with two people in love, and polymarous relationships will make marriage complicated, and poly people should just not bother with it because its simpler.

You're not wrong, it's just for legal reasons really

[The New California Republic]

I see nothing wrong with marriage. It should be a union between two in love that tells the world they stay together for life. But some people don't realize it's significance and aren't prepared for it. If you don't want to get married than don't get married. Simple as that.

That feel when your polygamist

What is your opinion on polygamous/polyamorous marriage? I don't have a problem with it, as long as everyone in the relationship loves and respects each other, just like in any """normal""" marriage.

[Internationalist Bastard]

That feel when your polygamist

What is your opinion on polygamous/polyamorous marriage? I don't have a problem with it, as long as everyone in the relationship loves and respects each other, just like in any """normal""" marriage.

As I said above, it's complex, but marriage in that case is for legal and financial reasons more then anything.

[The New California Republic]

What is your opinion on polygamous/polyamorous marriage? I don't have a problem with it, as long as everyone in the relationship loves and respects each other, just like in any """normal""" marriage.

As I said above, it's complex, but marriage in that case is for legal and financial reasons more then anything.

It would make laws that make reference to "next of kin" etc quite complex if polygamous marriage was legal, it would be more a case of "next of kins!". I suppose to get around that you could make the group have "legal person" status, like a corporation! You could give it a name and everything!

[Galloism]

As I said above, it's complex, but marriage in that case is for legal and financial reasons more then anything.

It would make laws that make reference to "next of kin" etc quite complex if polygamous marriage was legal, it would be more a case of "next of kins!". I suppose to get around that you could make the group have "legal person" status, like a corporation! You could give it a name and everything!

There's actually a method that makes sense in this context (with, of course, some modifications) - S corps define group income, then pass down that group income to the members based on the collective share they have in the corporation.

That doesn't solve the children related issues, but it is a good framework to begin to deal with property ownership and taxation issues.

[Internationalist Bastard]

As I said above, it's complex, but marriage in that case is for legal and financial reasons more then anything.

It would make laws that make reference to "next of kin" etc quite complex if polygamous marriage was legal, it would be more a case of "next of kins!". I suppose to get around that you could make the group have "legal person" status, like a corporation! You could give it a name and everything!

Alex's Harem LLP?

[The New California Republic]

It would make laws that make reference to "next of kin" etc quite complex if polygamous marriage was legal, it would be more a case of "next of kins!". I suppose to get around that you could make the group have "legal person" status, like a corporation! You could give it a name and everything!

Alex's Harem LLP?

Taking a common legal document, like a Will for example, would read like this: "I, Alex, hereby bequeath all my worldly belongings to my next of kin, Alex's Harem LLP, in the event of my passing; to be divided equally among all its members". Maybe something like that will be an available option in the next few decades.

[Keshiland]

Alex's Harem LLP?

Taking a common legal document, like a Will for example, would read like this: "I, Alex, hereby bequeath all my worldly belongings to my next of kin, Alex's Harem LLP, in the event of my passing; to be divided equally among all its members". Maybe something like that will be an available option in the next few decades.

But remember per your own words its abuse if you don't include your spouse in the will even if they are a billionair and well off to do and you want to help your children get ahead in life. all must be equal.

[Dylar]

Taking a common legal document, like a Will for example, would read like this: "I, Alex, hereby bequeath all my worldly belongings to my next of kin, Alex's Harem LLP, in the event of my passing; to be divided equally among all its members". Maybe something like that will be an available option in the next few decades.

But remember per your own words its abuse if you don't include your spouse in the will even if they are a billionair and well off to do and you want to help your children get ahead in life. all must be equal.

But, you see, it's a polygamous relationship disguised as a corporation, so he'd be including all the spouses in his will.

[The New California Republic]

Taking a common legal document, like a Will for example, would read like this: "I, Alex, hereby bequeath all my worldly belongings to my next of kin, Alex's Harem LLP, in the event of my passing; to be divided equally among all its members". Maybe something like that will be an available option in the next few decades.

But remember per your own words its abuse if you don't include your spouse in the will

Nope, I didn't say that. You are putting words in my mouth again, that is very bad of you. Naughty naughty Keshiland!

Also, how is the spouse not included in the will if they are part of the legal person that is formed? They are included in the will as part of the legal person, so you are talking nonsense Keshiland.