[pooka]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Either way, you're wrong about me and I pretty much pegged you.

Man, honestly, I always thought you were kind of alright. Maybe this subject is near and dear to your heart or something, but you're sort coming across as a bit of a pecker. Please note that I'm not calling you a pecker. Just mentioning that you appear to be expressing some dickishnish.

I guess I've abstained from posting in here for a while, so my intentions aren't clear (I really miss the Simey/Lerk wars). I really don't care about any of this. My arguments, my "straw men", everything are clearly absurd. Yeah, you can read into little things here and there in an attempt to find out where I lean or my biases. But dood, you aint got **** pegged. I've demonstrated that I'm an idiot with a sub-100 IQ. You've clearly, thoughtfully and at times, dickishly expressed your personal feelings and views on variety of subjects. But hey, you don't see me wanking off about how I could build an FBI quality profile on you.

That said, I simply disagree with you. Maybe it's the way my primitive brain works, but I am unable to assign a label of right or wrong to a wide variety of human behavior. If that makes me a moron.... nah, I've got a laundry list of things that make me that.

Some examples:

"Richard, I do not love you any more. Your lame jokes and expectations that I have sex with you once a year sicken me. I am leaving you. I want custody of the kids."

"Richard, I do not love you any more. Your lame jokes and expectations that I have sex with you once a year sicken me. I am leaving you. I never wanted these kids in the first place so you take them."

"Richard, I want to have gay sex with you and live with and grow old with you and share insurance with you."

[pooka]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Hey, we're just not as tough as you, I guess.

For real, nothing personal. I assumed that my comments were so over the top that no one would take me seriously. If you all must know why I'm so down on marriage, go see Indy.

But if we're being honest here, I really don't assign much value to the institution. Seriously, I was wed by Elvis. ****, aren't you in a somewhat taboo situation yourself? I seem to recall quite a few comments and sanctimonious bullshit being thrown your way in previous threads. But hey, if it makes you happy, I'm not going to judge you for it. Hell, I look up to you. I can't handle one freakin woman. As far as I'm concerned, you're a king among men.

But mainly because of the car.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by pooka 

But if we're being honest here, I really don't assign much value to the institution. Seriously, I was wed by Elvis. ****, aren't you in a somewhat taboo situation yourself? I seem to recall quite a few comments and sanctimonious bullshit being thrown your way in previous threads. But hey, if it makes you happy, I'm not going to judge you for it. Hell, I look up to you. I can't handle one freakin woman. As far as I'm concerned, you're a king among men.

But mainly because of the car.

Nothing taboo about it, people online are asshats. I'm used to it, their prejudice feeds me and makes me realize that my choices are correct.

FWIW, I don't "handle" anyone, I've learned to choose my battles and live with compromise. It's not extremely common, but when I do take an opposing stance, they notice and respect it. Helps that I've developed a supernatural level of empathy.

If a relationship between two people is a great deal of work, between three it's exponentially more difficult. In many ways, the entire arrangement is an example of harnessing chaos. In that, if your grip isn't strong enough everything will fly apart, but if it's too strong you'll likely lose several fingers in the explosion.

For me, marriage is pleasure and pain, and I intensely enjoy both. I'm pretty certain that I'll never experience anything more difficult, or more rewarding.


P.S. The car was easy, they "know" I buy a new car every 6-7 years. (See what I did there?)

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You make assertions such as the notion of life-long commitments being "retarded" then try to thrust this opinionated BS into some argument?

I never said the notion of a life-long commitment is retarded. I said the notion that a marriage commitment somehow HAS TO BE forever is retarded. To have this expectation

I don't get it. This may be the "reality" you've accepted, but your assertion has led to at least as much retardation as the naivete of making good choices in the first place and elevating at least something as important as child development above your own temporal desires.

"Making good choices." You realize we are all humans right?

It's not about "our own temporal desires." It's about accepting reality as it is, being honest with oneself, not living to satisfy the expectations that others put on you and improving life for all involved. To you I submit two things: One; that it is the very expectation of "forever" that creates much of the pain of divorce for children. Two; that it is a very poor life lesson to teach a child through the actions of their parents that it is better to remain unhappy in marriage than to divorce. It would be a far better lesson to show them that it doesn't have to be the end of the world and the mommies and daddies don't have to hate each other if they part. (No, I am not trying to make a false dichotomy, merely making an example)

Children are very impressionable because they are children. They are supposed to be. Divorce effects them in the long-term only to the extent that everything in their lives do. Also, how much of this pain of divorce that children live through is directly because of the nightmare of stressful, bureaucratic nonsense that their parents must go through?

Divorce is often wrong and should be considered wrong when it is. People failing to confront their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Marriage and divorce are no exception.

The problem with this statement is that it requires the judgement by those outside of the relationship. Who are you or I to say which are wrong or which are OK? Regardless, though you may say that sometimes divorce is justified and all that the overall impression is that divorce is wrong until proven to be right. It is this that I have a problem with.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by pooka 

Man, honestly, I always thought you were kind of alright. Maybe this subject is near and dear to your heart or something, but you're sort coming across as a bit of a pecker. Please note that I'm not calling you a pecker. Just mentioning that you appear to be expressing some dickishnish.

It is somewhat near and dear to my heart, but not for any personal or profound reason. While I was being somewhat tongue in cheek with you, I'm a little annoyed at how little regard there seemed to be for kids. After all, it had not even come up 'til I mentioned it.

I guess I've abstained from posting in here for a while, so my intentions aren't clear (I really miss the Simey/Lerk wars). I really don't care about any of this. My arguments, my "straw men", everything are clearly absurd. Yeah, you can read into little things here and there in an attempt to find out where I lean or my biases. But dood, you aint got **** pegged.

I should've used a winkee face. I apologize. I got a kick out of the 'M3' statement though and for a fleeting minute thought I had nailed at least part of your profile.

I've demonstrated that I'm an idiot with a sub-100 IQ. You've clearly, thoughtfully and at times, dickishly expressed your personal feelings and views on variety of subjects. But hey, you don't see me wanking off about how I could build an FBI quality profile on you.

I apologize. I was trying to have fun.

That said, I simply disagree with you. Maybe it's the way my primitive brain works, but I am unable to assign a label of right or wrong to a wide variety of human behavior. If that makes me a moron.... nah, I've got a laundry list of things that make me that.

In the wide variety of behaviors for which you do not assign the labels of right and wrong; you must've failed to include "opinionated".

Some examples:

"Richard, I do not love you any more. Your lame jokes and expectations that I have sex with you once a year sicken me. I am leaving you. I want custody of the kids."

"Richard, I do not love you any more. Your lame jokes and expectations that I have sex with you once a year sicken me. I am leaving you. I never wanted these kids in the first place so you take them."

"Richard, I want to have gay sex with you and live with and grow old with you and share insurance with you."

Okay, now you're begging for a profile. Do you want the profile or not?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I never said the notion of a life-long commitment is retarded. I said the notion that a marriage commitment somehow HAS TO BE forever is retarded. To have this expectation

Originally Posted by smacintush

The same retarded "marriage is forever" attitude is usually applied to these people as well.

I guess I interpreted your statement the only way I could have for it to have even made sense. Since I never implied that all marriages HAVE TO BE forever and with over 40% of them failing; I really don't think society is stuck in the "forever-attitude" rut. I said that it is both weak and lazy to terminate a marriage that produced children for nothing more than; "I fell out of love with...". The notion that love is something that hits you like a rock and can be lost (like the novelty of a Nintendo game boy after a year) is what is fallacious and retarded. This isn't to deny real marital problems.

"Making good choices." You realize we are all humans right?

Can humans not learn from their mistakes? Seen the statistics on the failed first, second, and third marriages? Why are we not learning? Still looking for love are we? These were all abusive, drug using thugs?

It's not about "our own temporal desires." It's about accepting reality as it is, being honest with oneself, not living to satisfy the expectations that others put on you and improving life for all involved.

This is exactly what I'm attempting to bring to light about our society and why.

To you I submit two things: One; that it is the very expectation of "forever" that creates much of the pain of divorce for children.

No. It is the notion that happiness is love and love is something that hits you like a rock and makes it hard to breath and stand upright. Once you can breath and stand upright again it's time to move on. There are things in this world that are bigger than your personal happiness and when you realize this and work towards the betterment of all involved, you'll have a better shot at finding it. We're searching for ghosts in marriage that statistically never appear where we're looking.

Two; that it is a very poor life lesson to teach a child through the actions of their parents that it is better to remain unhappy in marriage than to divorce. It would be a far better lesson to show them that it doesn't have to be the end of the world and the mommies and daddies don't have to hate each other if they part. (No, I am not trying to make a false dichotomy, merely making an example)

It would be far better to show them persistence and perseverance. It'd be far better for you to show them that there are things in this life bigger than you. It'd be far better to teach them how to solve problems rather than simply bailing out once it doesn't meet your "knight in shining armor" and "boy, I'm so in love I'm tongue-tied" nonsense.

Children are very impressionable because they are children. They are supposed to be. Divorce effects them in the long-term only to the extent that everything in their lives do. Also, how much of this pain of divorce that children live through is directly because of the nightmare of stressful, bureaucratic nonsense that their parents must go through?

I don't know to be honest. I'm more familiar with the advantages that two-parent households statistically afford their offspring than what failed marriages produce though I think the evidence is pretty convincing either way.

The problem with this statement is that it requires the judgement by those outside of the relationship. Who are you or I to say which are wrong or which are OK? Regardless, though you may say that sometimes divorce is justified and all that the overall impression is that divorce is wrong until proven to be right. It is this that I have a problem with.

Everything we do in life requires judgement. Why has "judgement" become such a bad word? It used to be said that when we fail to employ judgement we're found lacking judgement. Now, it's a bad word as if we can't define right or wrong by the overwhelming degree of empirical evidence available. Tell ya what, any time you elevate your own self-interests above those of your immediate family, you're doing something wrong. Words to live by. You may find that you won't become part of the 40% failed first marriage, the 55% failed second marriage, and 60+% failed third marriage statistic.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Everything we do in life requires judgement. Why has "judgement" become such a bad word? It used to be said that when we fail to employ judgement we're found lacking judgement. Now, it's a bad word as if we can't define right or wrong by the overwhelming degree of empirical evidence available.

Of course judgement isn't a bad word. You have a bowl of soup and a bowl of poison in front of you. Who is going to claim that you shouldn't make a judgement?

What I think smac is trying to express is that you shouldn't try to divine people's motivations, and judge them on that.

To put it another way, you (and by you I mean everybody) suck at empirically determining people's motivations. It is not only a huge waste of time to do so, you are actually hurting yourself and other people in the process. That's the part that (literally) deserves its own bad word.

Mind you, this doesn't mean love everyone and forgive everything. If someone is a jerk to you, don't waste your time with them. Where things get screwed up is when you try and figure out why they're a jerk based on observation.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Of course judgement isn't a bad word. You have a bowl of soup and a bowl of poison in front of you. Who is going to claim that you shouldn't make a judgement?

Anyone could really. Since we're not divining motives here; let's say this individual would like to end their own life. They may want the poison. Suicide could be bad, could be good, but I'm not going to judge what this person should do with these choices or whether or not their choice is wrong.

What I think smac is trying to express is that you shouldn't try to divine people's motivations, and judge them on that.

I appreciate your help with smacintush's posts, but I'm not divining anything. Ex-couples are telling us that they "fell out of love". It is among the most popular reasons given for divorce.

To put it another way, you (and by you I mean everybody) suck at empirically determining people's motivations. It is not only a huge waste of time to do so, you are actually hurting yourself and other people in the process. That's the part that (literally) deserves its own bad word.

I'm not divining or determining people's motivations by anything less empirical than what they're telling us. There really isn't a whole lot to extrapolate here.

Mind you, this doesn't mean love everyone and forgive everything. If someone is a jerk to you, don't waste your time with them. Where things get screwed up is when you try and figure out why they're a jerk based on observation.

... or I could just ask them or seek any number of surveys and polls to find out what they're saying. Not all things are ad hoc guesswork and blind meandering. Though I will say that there are times when generalizations and judgements are damned good tools. After all, if precedent and compartmentalization were worthless we wouldn't employ it so effectively in so many other facets of our society.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I appreciate your help with smacintush's posts, but I'm not divining anything. Ex-couples are telling us that they "fell out of love". It is among the most popular reasons given for divorce.

So then what exactly is your problem with this?

Do you not believe them? Are they not "trying hard enough"? Is then divorce only only acceptable in cases of abuse and such? Help me out here.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

So then what exactly is your problem with this?

Do you not believe them? Are they not "trying hard enough"? Is then divorce only only acceptable in cases of abuse and such? Help me out here.

My point was that to use the "definition of marriage" as an argument against gay marriage is questionable considering heterosexuals having defined it as a life-long commitment you make to at least two people a couple of times in your life-time with prenups to protect assets. I believe the implications of divorce on kids are not considered heavily enough in our quest for "happiness". Happiness we too often do not find with our second and third marriages. I used the fact that no one had mentioned them as evidence. I believe this is at least equally destructive (IMO more) than the notion of lifelong commitment.

My view has been somehow twisted into a crusade against divorce when that was not my initial intent nor the intent of the OP.

[NZFL]

Husband comes from the Old English of House-Bound. Once married an man became house-bound, hence the modern day word, Husband. Makes you wonder eh?

[art_director]

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman ... I love it when people claim that. What a crock. Even more I love it when people claim gay union puts their marriage at risk. Blah. I'm married and gay people don't help, nor do they harm, my marriage. My wife agrees. Of course, I did suggest we invite a lesbian into our marriage. That would be neat.

Religion, now there's something that hurts a marriage.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman ... I love it when people claim that. What a crock.

Well, traditionally it has been hasn't it? Isn't same sex marriage a relatively recent invention? Either way I agree that it's stupid to claim that since it has always been that way that it shouldn't change. I guess in a way it does fit with their denial of evolution.

Even more I love it when people claim gay union puts their marriage at risk. Blah. I'm married and gay people don't help, nor do they harm, my marriage.

I don't think I ever understood it this way. I thought the idea was that it would destroy the institution of marriage itself, not destroy the marriages of people like us. Again, yeah I agree that it's a bullshit concept.

Of course, I did suggest we invite a lesbian into our marriage. That would be neat.

At this point I would take just about any person into my marriage who would actually have sex with me.

Religion, now there's something that hurts a marriage.

Religion poisons everything.

[peeb]

Black people have traditionally been discriminated against. That doesn't make it right, or ok to introduce constitutional amendments to discriminate against them.