Comments
21 - 40 of 52 Comments Last updated Sep 19, 2013

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

RACE wrote:
I took it that way too, but the point can be made that if she is a stay at home wife, she could be acknowledging the fact that He is the bread winner and it really is his money that is paying for the dress.
Which begs the question...If this is true what obligation does he really have to spend any of it on the dress? Not his kid, is not a household expense, not even a shared vacation cost.
<quoted text>
If there is a deadbeat bio dad and mom has married when girl is 17 it is highly unlikely she was a SAHM. Quite possibly they have kept separate finances.
I agree with the advice. Given the bio dad's history unless he has completely turned his life around, I have doubts he will pay for his half of the dress and may even trash the wedding somehow. Note that the daughter found him rather than bio dad seeking out the daughter.

One role is for LW to walk his wife down the aisle.

A lot depends on the quality of his relationship with his stepdaughter but it does not sound as affectionate as it might be.

Cynical note: since the bride is romanticizing her relationship with her bio-dad, she may be doing so with the groom. LW can walk her down the aisle at her next wedding.

L2 Any bets that the shy LW is really teh same person who wrote to Abby?

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No, but you bring me to work with you!
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>i don't work with you.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>If there is a deadbeat bio dad and mom has married when girl is 17 it is highly unlikely she was a SAHM. Quite possibly they have kept separate finances.
I wouldn't say "highly" unlikely. I can think of several similar cases, including 3 of my brothers. They all married single moms who quit working soon after marriage for various reasons.

Two of them wouldn't, but one definitely considers it all to be MY money. If WE don't have a paycheck, then WE don't have cash. Not the way I would live, but his wife is just fine with that, and it isn't my problem.

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Sep 18, 2013
 
Mimi Seattle wrote:
Late 30s? Pay for your own damn dress. Walking down the aisle? Stupid archaic tradition.
Well, yes. At any age I think you should pay for your own wedding. If you're adult enough to get married then pay for your own darn party and all the items.

I figured, though, if he thought he was buying his place in the wedding, buy the whole dress then. When people comment on her dress she could say her stepfather insisted on paying for her dream dress.

Now, personally I see all that stuff as wasted money. But... whatever floats your boat.

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

RACE wrote:
No, but you bring me to work with you!
<quoted text>
No he doesn't. You live in a box. On his desk. AND he can turn you off!

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mimi Seattle wrote:
Late 30s? Pay for your own damn dress. Walking down the aisle? Stupid archaic tradition.
Jeebusfukincrow, now you've got a problem with walking down the aisle!? Why don't we just get rid of the whole marriage tradition thing all together? That's what you really want, just admit it. It's the same reason you support gay marriage. You hate the notion of marriage and want to destroy it every way possible.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
No he doesn't. You live in a box. On his desk. AND he can turn you off!
I keep you all in my pocket. Right next to my dingaling

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

How can one support gay marriage and hate the notion of marriage at the same time?
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeebusfukincrow, now you've got a problem with walking down the aisle!? Why don't we just get rid of the whole marriage tradition thing all together? That's what you really want, just admit it. It's the same reason you support gay marriage. You hate the notion of marriage and want to destroy it every way possible.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Sep 18, 2013
 
We noticed thanks, Lots of room to stretch out.
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep you all in my pocket. Right next to my dingaling

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeebusfukincrow, now you've got a problem with walking down the aisle!? Why don't we just get rid of the whole marriage tradition thing all together? That's what you really want, just admit it. It's the same reason you support gay marriage. You hate the notion of marriage and want to destroy it every way possible.
You're stoopid.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Sep 18, 2013
 
RACE wrote:
How can one support gay marriage and hate the notion of marriage at the same time?
<quoted text>
Right? People like him will never get that "tradition" isn't always a good thing. If it were, we (society I mean) would have had him locked up and subjected him to ECT a long time ago because that is a "traditional" treatment for people like him. Or a lobotomy. <shrug>

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mimi Seattle wrote:
<quoted text>
Right? People like him will never get that "tradition" isn't always a good thing. If it were, we (society I mean) would have had him locked up and subjected him to ECT a long time ago because that is a "traditional" treatment for people like him. Or a lobotomy. <shrug>
Isn't a brain necessary for a lobotomy?

(Sorry, edog -- could NOT resist.)

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Sep 18, 2013
 
RACE wrote:
How can one support gay marriage and hate the notion of marriage at the same time?
<quoted text>
They hate the idea of the SANCTITY of marriage. If marriage is anything goes, which is what they want, then marriage itself has no validity.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Right. Because marriage has been a static, unchanging institution for the last few thousand years.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The history of marriage: 13 points.

1. Arranged alliances
Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.
2. Family ties
Keeping alliances within the family was also quite common. In the Bible, the forefathers Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham married his half-sister. Cousin marriages remain common throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, Rutgers anthropologist Robin Fox has estimated that the majority of all marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins.
3. Polygamy preferred
Monogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives.(Of course, though polygamy may have been an ideal that high-status men aspired to, for purely mathematical reasons most men likely had at most one wife). In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages.[Life's Extremes: Monogamy vs. Polygamy]
4. Babies optional
In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring.
"The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told LiveScience.
5. Monogamy established
Monogamy became the guiding principle for Western marriages sometime between the sixth and the ninth centuries, Coontz said.
"There was a protracted battle between the Catholic Church and the old nobility and kings who wanted to say 'I can take a second wife,'" Coontz said.
The Church eventually prevailed, with monogamy becoming central to the notion of marriage by the ninth century.
6. Monogamy lite
Still, monogamous marriage was very different from the modern conception of mutual fidelity. Though marriage was legally or sacramentally recognized between just one man and one woman, until the 19th century, men had wide latitude to engage in extramarital affairs, Coontz said. Any children resulting from those trysts, however, would be illegitimate, with no claim to the man's inheritance.
"Men's promiscuity was quite protected by the dual laws of legal monogamy but tolerance basically enabling of informal promiscuity," Coontz said.
Women caught stepping out, by contrast, faced serious risk and censure.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

7. State or church?
Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.
8. Civil marriage
In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States.
9. Love matches
By about 250 years ago, the notion of love matches gained traction, Coontz said, meaning marriage was based on love and possibly sexual desire. But mutual attraction in marriage wasn't important until about a century ago. In fact, in Victorian England, many held that women didn't have strong sexual urges at all, Coontz said.
10. Market economics
Around the world, family-arranged alliances have gradually given way to love matches, and a transition from an agricultural to a market economy plays a big role in that transition, Coontz said.
Parents historically controlled access to inheritance of agricultural land. But with the spread of a market economy, "it's less important for people to have permission of their parents to wait to give them an inheritance or to work on their parents' land," Coontz said. "So it's more possible for young people to say,'heck, I'm going to marry who I want.'"

Modern markets also allow women to play a greater economic role, which lead to their greater independence. And the expansion of democracy, with its emphasis on liberty and individual choice, may also have stacked the deck for love matches.
11. Different spheres
Still, marriage wasn't about equality until about 50 years ago. At that time, women and men had unique rights and responsibilities within marriage. For instance, in the United States, marital rape was legal in many states until the 1970s, and women often could not open credit cards in their own names, Coontz said. Women were entitled to support from their husbands, but didn't have the right to decide on the distribution of community property. And if a wife was injured or killed, a man could sue the responsible party for depriving him of "services around the home," whereas women didn't have the same option, Coontz said.
12. Partnership of equals
By about 50 years ago, the notion that men and women had identical obligations within marriage began to take root. Instead of being about unique, gender-based roles, most partners conceived of their unions in terms of flexible divisions of labor, companionship, and mutual sexual attraction.
13. Gay marriage gains ground
Changes in straight marriage paved the way for gay marriage. Once marriage was not legally based on complementary, gender-based roles, gay marriage seemed like a logical next step.
"One of the reasons for the stunningly rapid increase in acceptance of same sex marriage is because heterosexuals have completely changed their notion of what marriage is between a man and a woman," Coontz said. "We now believe it is based on love, mutual sexual attraction, equality and a flexible division of labor."

“Not a real reg”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Sep 18, 2013
 
RACE wrote:
How can one support gay marriage and hate the notion of marriage at the same time?
<quoted text>
Lack of comprehension on his part. The comment was that walking her down the aisle was archaic. Nowadays when people are getting married at an older age daddy is not "giving her away".

I think it would be ok if the bride and groom met at the start of the aisle and walked down together. With or without(step)parents following or leading. Nothing wrong with tweaking tradition a bit.

Since: Jun 09

Saint Petersburg, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Sep 18, 2013
 
Mimi Seattle wrote:
Late 30s? Pay for your own damn dress. Walking down the aisle? Stupid archaic tradition.
I totally agree, but maybe the mom wants to do it as a surprise or a gift and the daughter isn't asking/expecting it. When I was getting married <shudder> I found a VERY reasonably priced dress I LOVED (and still do). WHen I decided to get it and went to pay for it, my mother insisted she pay. I in no way, shape or form expected my parent sot pay for ANY part of my wedding, but they wanted to do that as a gift to me. I am assuming she told my dad first, but maybe not!

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Sep 18, 2013
 
No, you hate their interpretation of the "Sanctity of Marriage".
Sanctity...Noun, plural sanc·ti·ties.
1.holiness, saintliness, or godliness.
2.sacred or hallowed character: the inviolable sanctity of the temple.
3.a sacred thing.

How does two people of the same sex getting married destroy it's SANCTITY?
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
They hate the idea of the SANCTITY of marriage. If marriage is anything goes, which is what they want, then marriage itself has no validity.

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Sep 18, 2013
 
dahgts wrote:
<quoted text>
Lack of comprehension on his part. The comment was that walking her down the aisle was archaic. Nowadays when people are getting married at an older age daddy is not "giving her away".
I think it would be ok if the bride and groom met at the start of the aisle and walked down together. With or without(step)parents following or leading. Nothing wrong with tweaking tradition a bit.
For my first wedding (I was 22), both my father and step-father walked me down the aisle. My mom remarried when I was about 8, so it seem appropriate to have them both.(It pleased my step-dad to no end, but of course he would only tell my mother that.) They both helped pay for the wedding, btw.

For my second wedding (I was 34), I walked myself down the aisle. We (my husband and I) paid for most of that wedding.

So I tweaked tradition twice, and if the LW and his step-daughter communicated better, I bet they could manage to do it once.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min sonicfilter 1,096,032
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 6 min texas pete 4,638
last post wins! (Apr '13) 9 min Hatti_Hollerand 321
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 27 min Chickenpoo 49,264
Amy 8-21 44 min PEllen 14
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr truth-facts 46,238
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr LRS 176,789
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr Toj 97,823

Search the Chicago Forum:
•••
Chicago Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••