REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

New Jersey gay marriage ban overturned by judge

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Thursday, October 3, 2013 16:09
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2470
PAGE 1 of 2

Saturday, September 28, 2013 8:50 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


This may end up being the way it gets done nationwide. I'm guessing one of these State court decisions will be challenged and make it to the Supremes, where it'll be upheld.

Quote:

New Jersey court has lifted a ban on same-sex marriage but state Governor Chris Christie has said he intends to appeal against the decision.

Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson handed down the decision on Friday, finding the state's civil union system deprived those couples of certain federal benefits.

The ruling takes effect on 21 October.

Thirteen US states, including much of the Northeast region, currently allow same-sex marriage.

The ruling follows a July US Supreme Court decision striking down key parts of a law that prohibited the federal government from granting benefits to same-sex partners.

That same month, a group of same-sex couples and gay rights groups sued the state of New Jersey. They said the separate classification of "civil unions" did not entitle them to the same benefits as married persons.

Judge Jacobson ruled in their favour, finding the separate labels excluded gay couples from certain benefits, such a filing a joint federal tax return.

"Every day that the state does not allow same-sex couples to marry, plaintiffs are being harmed," she wrote in her opinion.

The order will not take effect until 21 October, allowing the state time to challenge the ruling.

Following the decision, a spokesman for New Jersey Gov Chris Christie told the media his office intends to lodge an appeal against the ruling with the state Supreme Court.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24309214

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 28, 2013 8:59 AM

WHOZIT


Gov. Fatbutt is OK with civil unions but thinks the word "marriage" should be left out, the left and their whores in the MSM have to have "that word" in all the bills, civil unions arn't good enough.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:12 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
Gov. Fatbutt is OK with civil unions but thinks the word "marriage" should be left out, the left and their whores in the MSM have to have "that word" in all the bills, civil unions arn't good enough.



As noted in the article, the U.S. tax code does not recognize civil unions. If you want to file "Married Filing Jointly", you have to be married.

Seems it'd be simpler to let gay folks get married, rather than having to go through every law on the books involving marriage and add "...or civil unions."


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:22 AM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
Gov. Fatbutt is OK with civil unions but thinks the word "marriage" should be left out, the left and their whores in the MSM have to have "that word" in all the bills, civil unions arn't good enough.



As noted in the article, the U.S. tax code does not recognize civil unions. If you want to file "Married Filing Jointly", you have to be married.

Seems it'd be simpler to let gay folks get married, rather than having to go through every law on the books involving marriage and add "...or civil unions."


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."



So they should change the law so the tax man recognizes it, but if they did the left would find another reason "that word" has to be used.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 28, 2013 10:53 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
Gov. Fatbutt is OK with civil unions but thinks the word "marriage" should be left out, the left and their whores in the MSM have to have "that word" in all the bills, civil unions arn't good enough.



As noted in the article, the U.S. tax code does not recognize civil unions. If you want to file "Married Filing Jointly", you have to be married.

Seems it'd be simpler to let gay folks get married, rather than having to go through every law on the books involving marriage and add "...or civil unions."





Allowing gays to marry takes down any legitimate reason to ban polygamy then. " Marriage " means pretty much what ever the hell we want it to mean, to hell with tradition and 1000's of years of precedence.

Not being the least bit 'anti-gay',but merely pragmatic on the issue. In for a penny,in for a pound, right ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 28, 2013 1:19 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thank you Geezer for your moderate, rational opinion, I much appreciate it. I think you're probably right in that it'll be dealt with by the states individually and eventually wind its way up to the Supremes. That may be the best way for it to go in the end.

As far as polygamy, I believe that is expressly illegal in America, isn't it? ...Yeah: "The practice was outlawed by the federal government in 1862, forbidding the practice in all U.S. territories." http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/is-polygamy-legal-in-us I kind of doubt there's going to be any big push to make it legal again.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 28, 2013 1:45 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Niki - Sodomy was 'expressly illegal' too. Now, state by state, it's being legalized.

Same as gay marriage,so why not the same w/ polygamy ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 28, 2013 4:17 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Niki - Sodomy was 'expressly illegal' too. Now, state by state, it's being legalized.

Same as gay marriage,so why not the same w/ polygamy ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall



Why? Because right wing tools like you are the only ones incapable of recognizing the difference between two consenting adults and more than two consenting adults. Thankfully, the rest are smart enough to figure this tricky situation.

Ditto with recognizing the difference between a consenting adult and a child or a dog. Right wingers have a tough time with that too.


*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 28, 2013 4:17 PM

MAL4PREZ


Double double

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 28, 2013 8:55 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

Why? Because right wing tools like you are the only ones incapable of recognizing the difference between two consenting adults and more than two consenting adults. Thankfully, the rest are smart enough to figure this tricky situation.

Ditto with recognizing the difference between a consenting adult and a child or a dog. Right wingers have a tough time with that too.



Because 2 consenting adults aren't always 2 consenting adults. Males do not equal females.

No RWingers have any problem w/ deciphering consenting adults and children. No idea where you're getting that nonsense.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:24 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


"Because right wing tools like you are the only ones incapable of recognizing the difference between two consenting adults and more than two consenting adults. Thankfully, the rest are smart enough to figure this tricky situation."

Amen. And yes, the poor sod is also too think apparently to grasp that "two consenting adults" does mean precisely that: Adults, no gender specified. Amazing, absolutely amazing. Duhhhh...

Obviously any thinking adult recognizes that polygamy isn't coming back any time soon because there is no desire for it, in this country or almost any other. I know what'll come flashing back, something about "Muslims", but just as there will never be Sharia Law in this country, the idea that a few people of any race, color, creed or faith would like polygamy to come back has no bearing on anything. Sadly, some people just have to put their two cents' worth in, even if it's only worth half a penny.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 29, 2013 3:39 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:



Allowing gays to marry takes down any legitimate reason to ban polygamy then. " Marriage " means pretty much what ever the hell we want it to mean, to hell with tradition and 1000's of years of precedence.

Not being the least bit 'anti-gay',but merely pragmatic on the issue. In for a penny,in for a pound, right ?



as has been pointed out to you MANY times on this board, there isn't 1000's of years of precedence. Marriage has had many variations throughout history, INCLUDING polygamy.

And what is the deal with the law being involved anyway? There is only one reason historically and that is about what happens to property upon death or separation. It's not that the institution was held to be sacred, it was actually because of the amount of children born to different partners that resulted in contesting of inheritance titles and land. FITZROY anyone (king's bastard) Marriage legally defined heirs of a union.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 29, 2013 9:23 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I'd bet 99% , if not more, of Americans are clueless as to the significance of 'Fitzroy'. We don't bother w/ royalty so much, unless they're getting married, having a child, or dying.

But the as to legal heirs to a union... that can only occur when there's a male and a female present.

" But what about adoptions ? Or heirs from a previous union ? "

More fun for lawyers, I suppose. People will make up any laws they want.


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 29, 2013 10:09 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yeah, Magons, I noticed that but have ceased bothering much of the time to point out that he's lying. I grasped his M.O. long ago; however something is solved/decided/agreed upon, Rap will return to his original argument later on as if it were still valid and continue to make it until the cows come home.

Of course those who are uneducated or have forgotten whatever they learned in school don't understand Fitzroy, unfortunately not everyone is as proud to announce their ignorance and pretend the rest of the world shares it, but your point is perfectly valid nonetheless. And of course his ignorance extends to all the accepted laws in every country about inheritance as well, which obviate the necessity of lawyers most of the time and where what HE recognizes as a "proper marriage" has covered adoption, etc., for ages now. He's really flailing on this one; isn't it about time he went back to "same-sex marriage means people will marry dogs" or something?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 29, 2013 12:25 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Allowing gays to marry takes down any legitimate reason to ban polygamy then.



Fine with me. Don't see any reason that any combination of informed, un-coerced adults shouldn't be able to be together if they choose to.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 29, 2013 12:47 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Allowing gays to marry takes down any legitimate reason to ban polygamy then.



Fine with me. Don't see any reason that any combination of informed, un-coerced adults shouldn't be able to be together if they choose to.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."



Hold on now... aren't you my sock puppet ? Or am I yours ? Either way, we're suppose to agree on everything, in lock step fashion, aren't we ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:11 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'd bet 99% , if not more, of Americans are clueless as to the significance of 'Fitzroy'. We don't bother w/ royalty so much, unless they're getting married, having a child, or dying.

But the as to legal heirs to a union... that can only occur when there's a male and a female present.




nevertheless, that's the history of marriage laws, and you brought up the history....


I'd also like to point out that producing biological offspring is not necessary to the legal definition of marriage, otherwise childless couples, or couples who adopt would not be considered married.

The idea that marriage is for procreation has long passed, with the production of children, along with marriage itself, now being a choice for many couples.

additionally, 'what happens to property' is an issue for childless couples upon the end of that relationship, either by separation or death, and this is definititely a matter of equity for gay couples who have been treated differently under law in the past.

My solution, get rid of any references to marriage within the law. Why should relationships be defined? Have a relationships register, where you can register your relationship under law. Choose the nature of your relationship. If you are religious, get married in a church/synagogue/temple. If you want to call yourself married, call yourself married.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:25 PM

CHRISISALL


I fully support a ban on gay marriage.
But then, I'd like to see all marriage banned.
It's a silly archaic custom.
We're all individuals; if we choose to shag someone in particular, so be it.
The idea that you can predict your future feelings for someone is nonsense.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:38 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I fully support a ban on gay marriage.
But then, I'd like to see all marriage banned.
It's a silly archaic custom.
We're all individuals; if we choose to shag someone in particular, so be it.
The idea that you can predict your future feelings for someone is nonsense.



Well, I think marriage is a choice that should be available to anyone who wants it, but as someone who emphatically DOESN'T want it, I get your meaning.

I do not think "love" exists as the propaganda describes. And I also think searching for "love" is a waste of time, an idea perpetuated by people who want us worried about the less important things. Tied into this time waster and angst generator of "relationships" and "jealousy" are equally useless concepts like fashion and cosmetics that prey upon low self-esteem.

People are told to feel a certain way about their current squeezes, and these messages have turned relationships into an ego thing about having and holding - and controlling. Yet most marriages end after 2 years - predictably after the two most difficult and demanding years of childcare are over.

Romantics are a malicious lie intended to hurt people with unrealistic expectations. Produce children if you want them, and stay amicably in the lives of those children and old friends, but don't try to hold on to things past when it is time to move on to new experiences. Stagnation is stifling and deadly.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 29, 2013 8:34 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Well, I think marriage is a choice that should be available to anyone who wants it, but as someone who emphatically DOESN'T want it, I get your meaning.

I do not think "love" exists as the propaganda describes. And I also think searching for "love" is a waste of time, an idea perpetuated by people who want us worried about the less important things.


Exactly. In the older days, "love" meant something more like "devotion", not the silly idea of 'completing one's self with another.'
We aren't 'incomplete' without a lover, just horny. heh heh

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 29, 2013 9:53 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Well it isn't compulsory to enter into marriage now. If you want to screw around, have multiple partners, or be in short term relationships, then you are free to do so.

I think there are still some of us who see the benefits in having long term relationships, because we want the stability and companionship that that can bring. I think its okay for people to make that committment to one another, that you'll hang in there for the good and bad times. It's a great thing to have that. Trouble is people get married for the wrong reasons. They don't mean for better or for worse, they mean 'until you lose your job, get fat or I get bored'.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2013 9:37 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I agree with Magons. The other part of that is that people get married for the "wrong reasons" in that they buy into what they're sold, that marriage is "happily ever after" and when it doesn't meet what they've been led to expect, they get out.

Jim and I didn't get married for ten years after we lived together...only did so in the end so I could put him on my dental insurance. My parents' marriage was enough to turn anyone off the institution, and he came from a divorce, so neither of us really cared whether we made it "legal" or not, especially as we didn't have children.

We had what would be called a "bad" relationship for the first twenty we were together. We had a crisis, and both of us woke up to some of our own issues, worked on them, and the last fifteen have been everything I could have asked for (I never did buy into the "happily ever after" bullshit in the first place, which helped). Marriage ain't easy; for some of us, it's worth it. I wouldn't trade the last fifteen years, and whatever's left us, for anything in the world.

ETA: "Romantics are a malicious lie intended to hurt people with unrealistic expectations". Oh, bullshit. That's your opinion, nothing more. Most people seek love, it's inherent in our species; the way it's been portrayed represents what people WISH were true, it's not done to intentionally hurt people, that's stupid in my opinion. It's done to sell things, certainly, and for many other reasons, but the idea that romance is some malicious myth made up to HURT people is laughable.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2013 10:36 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I think there are still some of us who see the benefits in having long term relationships, because we want the stability and companionship that that can bring. I think its okay for people to make that committment to one another, that you'll hang in there for the good and bad times. It's a great thing to have that. Trouble is people get married for the wrong reasons. They don't mean for better or for worse, they mean 'until you lose your job, get fat or I get bored'.


So "love" and "companionship" is really just hormones and economics. When long term companionship creates economic and emotional stability and remains beneficial even in difficult times, the relationship is considered successful. When it doesn't, interest is lost, the partner becomes unappealing, and the relationship fails.

The concept of "romance" is perpetuated by advertisers against people who believe in it, to lower their self-esteem and to get them to buy into empty promises. That is blatantly malicious and predatory. There is also inevitably disappointment when expectations don't meet up with reality. Why people can get so overemotional about one person like any million others is beyond me, yet it drives them to despair, rage, even suicide anyway. "Romance"/"Love" is therefore hurtful.

The majority of history has been arranged marriages. Marrying for "romance" or "love" is a relatively new concept, perpetuated by society and the smiling marketers who capitalize upon it, just a word invented to pretty up the ugly reality and make it more palatable. They tell everyone that it seems bad now, but you might find someone else out there who can help you cope with the mundane tortures of existence. But really only YOU can do that for yourself. This is therefore false hope.

I am not capable of your attachments, and am glad for it. I will never marry, and I scoff at "romance." The concept is offensive to me. I stand on my own, or I will die trying. I will leave no legacy, and expect no significance to result from the brief and meaningless time I was here.

This is the only truth I can live.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2013 12:20 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


"So "love" and "companionship" is really just hormones and economics." You write the craziest things. Fine, so that's the only "truth" you can "live". You're entitled to live whatever belief you choose. That doesn't make it "truth", simple as that.

No, even "when long term companionship DOESN'T CREATE economic and emotional stability and DOESN'T REMAIN beneficial", some people get down to WORK and try to improve things, and often when they do, they get through the bad times and their love actually deepens. I've known several of those cases, including my own. Young people are often un-self-aware and get into relationships for the wrong reason; if we're lucky, we wake up somewhere along the way and either, yes, do get out if it's actually an abusive relationship, or do the work to make things better. Life takes work.

There's obviously a whole world more to love and companionship than what you see; but you're certainly welcome to not recognize it if you want. The fact is that anything humans strive for will be used to try and get them to buy something or buy into something, if you want to look at it that way, NOTHING is of any value in and of itself, only in how people can be manipulated to want it. That's pathetic.

You can put your spin on just about anything humans desire. "The concept of "getting rich/looking young/owning a home/being a good Christian/Muslim/whatever" is perpetuated by advertisers..." etc., along with just about everything else. It's not malicious, it's salesmanship, certainly it's predatory, that's what selling is all about, preying on people's pocketbooks. Uncaring, certainly; self-serving, obviously; but jumping to deliberately "malicious"...shees.

From what you write, the idea that mankind has PROGRESSED beyond arranged marriages is a bad thing. There are no words...

Just because the idea of loving another person is repugnant to you doesn't make that reality. It's not. There are literally millions of us out here who have found someone to love, and that has made our lives incredibly richer, fuller and more enjoyable. I love sharing things with Jim, from his going with us on his bike when we sulky to long discussions about movies we've seen, politics, laying on his bed laughing and playing with the dogs, and just about everything else we do together. Nowadays I enjoy virtually every interaction I have with him, none of them have anything to do with economics and most of them have nothing to do with hormones.

It's ridiculous to attempt to communicate with you on this further; you appear to cherish your misery, so enjoy it. Just don't try to fob it off on the rest of us as "truth".


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2013 12:51 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

It's ridiculous to attempt to communicate with you on this further


Why do you assume I'm talking to YOU? I'm doing my best to ignore you, actually. You ought to try likewise to ignore ME, I guarantee you'll "enjoy" it.

Anyway, marriage and relationships are terrible. But if someone for some incomprehensible reason WANTS that, then go right ahead.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2013 12:52 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

The concept of "romance" is perpetuated by advertisers against people who believe in it, to lower their self-esteem and to get them to buy into empty promises. That is blatantly malicious and predatory. There is also inevitably disappointment when expectations don't meet up with reality. Why people can get so overemotional about one person like any million others is beyond me, yet it drives them to despair, rage, even suicide anyway. "Romance"/"Love" is therefore hurtful.

The majority of history has been arranged marriages. Marrying for "romance" or "love" is a relatively new concept, perpetuated by society and the smiling marketers who capitalize upon it, just a word invented to pretty up the ugly reality and make it more palatable. They tell everyone that it seems bad now, but you might find someone else out there who can help you cope with the mundane tortures of existence. But really only YOU can do that for yourself. This is therefore false hope.

I am not capable of your attachments, and am glad for it. I will never marry, and I scoff at "romance." The concept is offensive to me. I stand on my own, or I will die trying. I will leave no legacy, and expect no significance to result from the brief and meaningless time I was here.

This is the only truth I can live.



You're swiping the entirety of human bonding off the table with this, and that includes friendship, which is something well described by the words "companionship" or "help you cope with the mundane tortures of existence".

You are obviously free to reject all of it, but it's not really objective or truthful to proclaim the concept of human bonding as an artificially marketed source of only misery.

False expectations are a source of misery. But it's not really that stupid or irrational to (make the attempt to) create a long-term commitment with another person based on all aspects of life: economic, social, emotional, reproductive, sexual, etc. Most people already form long-term bonds with all kinds of other people based on just some of these aspects. It's a gamble and it doesn't always work out long-term, but not all people striving for it are doing it out of deceived stupidity. And it doesn't always end because illusions were shattered but because people tried and worked on it and mutually, amicably, decided that not all aspects of their lives are long-term compatible. And they don't necessarily regret having made the attempt, either, but stay connected through the other aspects of their shared lives, having been enriched by the experience.

There's immaturity at fault in a lot of marriages that end, but not in all. It's no more or less of an emotional gamble than any strong bond we form with someone, and for most people, the benefits involved in bonding outweigh the downsides, even with the experience of pain.

Basically, people in general are not just brainwashed cattle. Not about everything, anyway.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2013 1:16 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

You're swiping the entirety of human bonding off the table with this, and that includes friendship, which is something well described by the words "companionship" or "help you cope with the mundane tortures of existence".


Yep. Nowadays my coping mechanism consists of watching amusingly unfortunate web videos. Because there's no one who can help anyone with that. It's do or don't.

I am no longer lying to you about what I am, so there's that at least.

Quote:

You are obviously free to reject all of it, but it's not really objective or truthful to proclaim the concept of human bonding as an artificially marketed source of only misery.


Quote:

But it's not really that stupid or irrational to (make the attempt to) create a long-term commitment with another person based on all aspects of life: economic, social, emotional, reproductive, sexual, etc. Most people already form long-term bonds with all kinds of other people based on just some of these aspects. It's a gamble and it doesn't always work out long-term, but not all people striving for it are doing it out of deceived stupidity. And it doesn't always end because illusions were shattered but because people tried and worked on it and mutually, amicably, decided that not all aspects of their lives are long-term compatible. And they don't necessarily regret having made the attempt, either, but stay connected through the other aspects of their shared lives, having been enriched by the experience.

There's immaturity at fault in a lot of marriages that end, but not in all. It's no more or less of an emotional gamble than any strong bond we form with someone, and for most people, the benefits involved in bonding outweigh the downsides, even with the experience of pain.



So... Apparently there IS artifice AND misery in (all?) relationships, and there is a lack of consensus about whether positivity or negativity predominates.

Which one is the safe bet? I know which one I'd bet on.

No one said anything about stupid. But there is something to be said about what we tell ourselves sometimes, about friendships, about relationships - and I'm not sure any of it is true. And I also know it can be exploited.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2013 2:14 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:

It's ridiculous to attempt to communicate with you on this further


Why do you assume I'm talking to YOU? I'm doing my best to ignore you, actually. You ought to try likewise to ignore ME, I guarantee you'll "enjoy" it.



You didn't specify an audience (or note any exclusion) so the general assumption is that anyone can respond.

Though I do believe the "ridiculous to attempt to communicate" part was referring to her attempt to engage with you.

But if you don't want folks responding to what you write - an open public forum probably isn't the place to do your writing.




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2013 2:21 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

But if you don't want folks responding to what you write - an open public forum probably isn't the place to do your writing.


No, the real question is why any of you want to.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2013 3:15 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
So... Apparently there IS artifice AND misery in (all?) relationships, and there is a lack of consensus about whether positivity or negativity predominates.

Which one is the safe bet? I know which one I'd bet on.

No one said anything about stupid. But there is something to be said about what we tell ourselves sometimes, about friendships, about relationships - and I'm not sure any of it is true. And I also know it can be exploited.



I wouldn't say artifice is a part of all relationships, or at least not at their core. Work is involved, though.

And, really, anything can be exploited, even mistrust or solitude. Everyone should be free to choose what makes them least miserable. For many or most people, that would be having strong emotional bonds with other people. For others, it's the lack of them. Neither is intrinsically better than the other. It's the judging that I disagree with.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2013 4:09 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I wouldn't say artifice is a part of all relationships, or at least not at their core.


Well... My logic is this, it could be all human interaction, or maybe it's just me. But I'm sort of average in all other respects, so why would it be different for anyone else?

I mean first impressions are all about being fake I thought. If you're a girl, you probably wear makeup, and if you're a guy, you try to play yourself up as cooler than you are. And if right from the beginning there's a fundamental falsehood, then isn't the entire thing also a falsehood? Things that are false don't suddenly become true.

Quote:

Everyone should be free to choose what makes them least miserable.


Posted in a thread where I agreed that gay marriage should be a thing.

Although I have to say, I don't understand happiness/ reduction of misery as a goal. Not only is it somewhat arbitrary and difficult to measure, it's one of the life goals that's more likely to increase misery of everyone else overall. I mean what if you're happier and less miserable if you're lighting cats on fire? Not to mention it can be used to dodge hard choices. Don't want to overthrow a brutal Empire? That's okay, just sit home and watch television instead. And if you've got your happiness, you don't have much motive to leave that happiness to help others.

What's triumph without hardship? It's the lows that let you appreciate the highs, that mold you into the person you can be. Even if you aren't hurting anyone, trying to sustain a mildly pleasurable/happy life forever becomes bland and boring.

Quote:

It's the judging that I disagree with.


Man, SOMEONE has to. Plus that just happens to be my only skill worth mentioning.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2013 5:46 PM

STORYMARK


No, it's not.




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2013 6:21 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


We're pack animals, we're meant to live together by and large. I get that you are more like a lone wolf, Byte, but mostly people do prefer to live together and form relationships.

There is a fair degree of artiface in romance, I can agree with much of what you write. I was never big on it myself, never wanted all the hoopla that goes with marriage around weddings. In fact, I have a strong reaction against that sort of thing. The more artiface, the more cynical I get about how long it will last. I've found being in a long term relationship actually gets through that artiface, sometimes more than I would choose. You get to see the real me after so many years. Scary. Sometimes that's why it doesn't work. You go into marriage thinking happily every after romantic ideals, you'
re going to be disappointed. The reality of mortgages, jobs, children which is average Jo and Jane's life is pretty hard going, especially initially.

I loved that Nicci, you found the first twenty years hard going and then the next 15 have been great. What a stayer. I'm glad its paid off.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2013 6:48 PM

BYTEMITE


Well, you're cynical about some things, so I'm placated for now.

(Also ugh agreed at least on how some relationships are far worse than others. The closer they are to a wedding day the closer the correlation is to 1 - weddings seem to bring out the exaggerated fake romantics in a relationship. Because I guess that's what everyone expects, it's like weddings have to be over the top for everyone to be convinced of the sincerity)

(Although in fairness, "real" in a relationship can be pretty bad too)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 1, 2013 7:51 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I fully support a ban on gay marriage.
But then, I'd like to see all marriage banned.
It's a silly archaic custom.
We're all individuals; if we choose to shag someone in particular, so be it.
The idea that you can predict your future feelings for someone is nonsense.



You could do this, but "Marriage" - as a legal concept - is pretty embedded in our legal system: from custody of children to inheritance to hospital visitation to income tax rates and so on. It'd be difficult to get it out, and I'd guess most folks still want the legal form of marriage.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 1, 2013 10:00 AM

BYTEMITE


Yeah, the legal system is pretty bullshit too.

I get the practical reasoning behind giving couples a tax break, since it encourages them to have kids and also helps them support said kids. Kids are expensive.

And I also get leaving questions of the estate and health care to people who have better than even odds of having the person's best interests at heart.

But there's definitely aspects of both instances that need some reforms. And custody. Holy JEEZ. So much messed up about custody. As if vindictive people fighting over the kids is good for the kids.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 1, 2013 9:54 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Holy JEEZ. So much messed up about custody. As if vindictive people fighting over the kids is good for the kids.

Aggressiveness rules in the animal world. And we are animals.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 1, 2013 11:53 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:


But there's definitely aspects of both instances that need some reforms. And custody. Holy JEEZ. So much messed up about custody. As if vindictive people fighting over the kids is good for the kids.



'Custody' has nothing to do with marriage laws in this country; there've been many reforms over the years and people still fight. You can't legislate good will unfortunately. Only thing for it is to have a parents licence - to prove you're a half way human being before you reproduce.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 2, 2013 1:42 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


"Why do you assume I'm talking to YOU?" It's a FORUM, little one; you post, people respond. "You didn't specify an audience (or note any exclusion) so the general assumption is that anyone can respond. But if you don't want folks responding to what you write - an open public forum probably isn't the place to do your writing."

But I'll let everyone else respond for me, as they've done an excellent job.

"You're swiping the entirety of human bonding off the table with this, and that includes friendship, which is something well described by the words "companionship" or "help you cope with the mundane tortures of existence". You are obviously free to reject all of it, but it's not really objective or truthful to proclaim the concept of human bonding as an artificially marketed source of only misery." The underlined part was my point.

"We're pack animals, we're meant to live together by and large.... mostly people do prefer to live together and form relationships."

and lastly,

"...that just happens to be my only skill worth mentioning." "No, it's not."

I agree. Your version of "judging" is to say that what you believe is "how it is", then jump all over anyone who disagrees. If you were to ever write, "in my opinion...", then I wouldn't mind your judging nearly as much. But you don't, you insist such-and-such is SO, in absolute terms, period. So I disagree, as do others, and you call THAT "judging". It's a free country and a free forum, you can write whatever you like, we can disagree as much as we want.

As to "the real question is why any of you want to", that's a laugh. I'm guessing MOST of us are here because we enjoy social interaction, the exchange of ideas, to share and to hear what others have to say...you know, "communication". If you didn't want social interaction, you wouldn't be here. If you didn't want attention, you wouldn't post.

On a more general note, I'm with Magons about weddings. As I've no doubt written before, Jim and I were married in a field at Grover Hot Springs, by my friend Paula's sister (a Universal Life minister), with her, Paula and a close friend in saris, Jim and his brother in Western shirts I'd embroidered for them, and me in a simple dress from the Renaissance Faire. Our 'honeymoon' was to give ourselves the gift of riding up to Grover and back on our motorcycles, which we'd long wanted to do. It was perfect.

On the other hand, I had a young internet friend who went the Whole Nine Yards for their wedding, several hundred people in attendance, posted the link to her expensive gown on line, and all the photos from the professional photographer, plus a honeymoon in Bermuda...they put themselves hugely in debt, she quickly became pregnant, he lost his job and they were royally screwed. To top it off, he ended up having a serious disease, so she had to support them both and last I heard they were still badly in debt and struggling. I never understood thousands of dollars for weddings when you're first starting out, always left me shaking my head.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 2, 2013 5:24 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


We did something imbetween. We got married at a restaurant near where we live, views of the Yarra Valley - very picturesque. We inviteed 50 people, close family and friends only. I got married in a deep green silk, I still have the dress and I still love it. My husband hired his suit. There was no engagement and no walking down the aisle no church no photographer. We drove to the restaurant together. A friend took the photos, and the best man and woman wore their own clothes. My cake was a white and dark chocolate. We honeymooned at the family beachhouse.

People still say it was one of the best weddings they ever went to.

It still cost thousands of dollars, around 4 I think. Dad chipped in a bit . Mum bought the cake. We paid for the rest. It still felt like a large outlay back in the day, but we felt we did it our way and it was worth it. We'd lived together 5 years and wanted to have a bit of a shindig, and it was also to acknowledge our committment to one another.

The average cost of traditional weddings is between 25-60 thousand these days.

The average marriage lasts about 7 years.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 2, 2013 6:06 PM

BYTEMITE


There's a rather large difference between being somehow unaware that people on a message board can respond to posts (sarcastic gasp shock and alarm), versus blatantly informing you that I don't want to talk to you, personally, at all, ever again.

And it insults both of us that you and Storymark tried to conflate the two.

The only thing you've said in this entire thread that I agree with is that it's futile for either of us to continue to try to communicate.

In short: leave me alone. I'll return the favour.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 2, 2013 6:35 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Respond. Don't respond.

It's a personal choice.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 2, 2013 7:23 PM

BYTEMITE


One which I was firmly in the don't respond category for the last week before this thread, I assure you. And which I have put into great effect with several other members of Fireflyfans for years at a time. But the very button that pushed this situation was pushed again.

I'm talking about a mutually beneficial arrangement where we don't talk to or about each other or acknowledge each other. It's better than constant yelling matches and insults and bickering. If she's willing to ignore I'm even here, then I can fulfill my part of the obligation in return.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:39 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


"Respond. Don't respond.

It's a personal choice." Amen.

I'll respond to who I choose Byte, as does everyone else. If I had the option of asking Rap and ALL those assholes who go after me constantly in the very nastiest way to ignore me, don't you think I would? It don't work that way--you put your words out there, they're for everyone, whether you like it or not. I'll disagree or agree with you as I see fit, as I do with everyone and as everyone does with me. I do choose to ignore Six because I long ago realized what he writes is just drunken trash, and I ignore PN because he's offensive and has nothing of value to impart. But other than that I read everyone's posts and respond or not, depending on whether I have an opinion on the issue they are addressing. You're free to ignore me, but I've got news for you, you can't tell people what to do here, sorry.

It seems to be a problem you've shown frequently, in throwing little snits about who's being meaner to who, telling people off when you think they "deserve" it, judging who's nastiness is okay 'cuz of their background or something, like you're some kind of hall monitor. Or, one might say, "judge". I get accused of that, but the accusation doesn't hold where I'm concerned; I express my opinion, but have no expectation anyone will do anything I say, and don't tell people what to do. You don't seem to grasp that, and keep trying to control people. It's weird, but that's the way you like it I guess, so enjoy.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:42 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Hey Magons, I love what you did. Sounds like it was lovely, and a nice way to memorialize the action without putting yourself in debt. Nice compromise.

And I'M certainly not offended (despite Byte's assumption) by you and Story noting the fact that nobody can tell anyone what to post here or who to respond to. I wholeheartedly agree...but I'm afraid you two have "insulted" Byte, better watch out!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 2, 2013 9:19 PM

BYTEMITE


I'm offering you a deal. I guess in your opinion offering to make a deal is "controlling you." But, it no longer makes any difference whether I am controlling or not.

Quote:

If I had the option of asking Rap and ALL those assholes who go after me constantly in the very nastiest way to ignore me, don't you think I would?


Then we are in agreement. I can, right now, remove a rather annoying thorn in your side, at very little trouble to yourself.

I see that we've moved onto the mocking phase, like you do with AURaptor. Good, good. I'm perfectly fine with that. Based on established history you will move on to the "pretending it's just the wind" phase shortly, and by that the terms of the agreement will then be filled. In anticipation of this, I can now begin to fulfill my side of the obligation.

Thank you for your cooperation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 2, 2013 9:27 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Thank you for your cooperation.


A Robocop line! Excellent.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 3, 2013 3:10 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Thank you for your cooperation.


A Robocop line! Excellent.


I remember that line. I believe he was frisking Nancy Allen at the time.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 3, 2013 4:41 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

I see that we've moved onto the mocking phase, like you do with AURaptor. Good, good. I'm perfectly fine with that. Based on established history you will move on to the "pretending it's just the wind" phase shortly, and by that the terms of the agreement will then be filled. In anticipation of this, I can now begin to fulfill my side of the obligation.



Time for some dancing and celebration.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 3, 2013 12:25 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Good lord you take things personally Byte, and you sure go overboard! I interact with different people differently here, as we all do, you already know that, you're just getting awfully carried away with this little hissy fit. Try to calm down, dear; just because you've now decided you hate ME doesn't carry over to how I feel about or deal with you. You want to ignore me, please go right ahead, it looks like that would be better for your peace of mind anyway, but snarking at me won't change anything, nor will it bother me one whit.

By the way, you hardly "offered" me a "deal", little one. You wrote "Why do you assume I'm talking to YOU? I'm doing my best to ignore you, actually. You ought to try likewise to ignore ME" and "In short: leave me alone. I'll return the favour." Those don't constitute an "offer", just for your future reference.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:56 - 2076 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:20 - 6156 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:18 - 57 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL