First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#61 Apr 9, 2013
all of them.
Sam I Am GEAM wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? And what rules have I said I would disregard?

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#62 Apr 9, 2013
RACE wrote:
and MUST have sex ONLY with your spouse.
"Forsaking all others."

The rest of your nonsense was never a part of my argument.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#63 Apr 9, 2013
squishymama wrote:
So which is it? Stay together in sickness and health, for better or worse? Or bag it because husband snores so loudly that wife can only get some sleep in a different room?
I do not condone divorce except for extreme circumstances. And as for your second point, Sam actually explained it well.

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#64 Apr 9, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not condone divorce except for extreme circumstances. And as for your second point, Sam actually explained it well.
So sleeping separately for spiteful reasons is an exceptable extreme circumstance?

“FD&S is no way to be.”

Since: Feb 13

Nashville, TN

#65 Apr 9, 2013
RACE wrote:
all of them.
<quoted text>
Ah, I see you're going the contradictory hyperbole route. Interesting. Translation: You have nothing and are being an ass just to be an ass.

“FD&S is no way to be.”

Since: Feb 13

Nashville, TN

#66 Apr 9, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not condone divorce except for extreme circumstances. And as for your second point, Sam actually explained it well.
Wait, what? Whatever I said, I take it back. I didn't mean it. I was drunk. Rush Limbaugh threatened to sit on me. I was delirious. I had rabies/early-onset dementia/polio/malaria.

BTW, Mutt, the problem ain't divorce, the problem is people getting married when they shouldn't, without due consideration and appreciation for the seriousness of what they are (i.e. should be) entering into. Divorce is just a symptom.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#67 Apr 9, 2013
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
So sleeping separately for spiteful reasons is an exceptable extreme circumstance?
No. If there's a problem you cannot fix, if you are abused, if your KID is abused, if he's arrested for running a prostitution ring, whatever. Extreme circumstances. The woman cutting him off and sleeping in a separate room is an example of immaturity and refusal to face the problem. I would never condone that, either.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#68 Apr 9, 2013
Sam I Am GEAM wrote:
BTW, Mutt, the problem ain't divorce, the problem is people getting married when they shouldn't, without due consideration and appreciation for the seriousness of what they are (i.e. should be) entering into. Divorce is just a symptom.
Maybe for some. But what of the people who get divorced after 20 or 30 or more years of marriage? That's not just simply a mistake of marrying too soon or for the wrong reasons. Every case is different but it basically boils down to the same thing: after that long of monotony and being tied down, some seek freedom or a change or just something different.

Since: Oct 09

Wagner, SD

#69 Apr 9, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think that's what I'm saying.
I'm unaware of any marriage vows that state: "ok, you two are gonna live in the same house, but sleep in different rooms, live as room-mates, and be each other's weekly booty call, and see other people, etc etc..."
So IF that is your marriage, you are making a mockery of your vows, and your marriage is a sham. The sensible thing to do in that case is either try to fix it, or end it.
So, what, exactly, should the "rules" of marriage be, according to you? Should they have sex a certain number of times per week? They have to eat together a certain number of times? They're each only allowed to be in the bathroom for a certain amount of time? They can only read particular books or papers and must share what they read? They can only do things by themselves a certain number of times a year? As ridiculous as all of that sounds, that's the way you're coming across, that each of the tens of millions of couples, in this country at least, must follow a prescribed formula of behavior or it's not a "true" marriage in your eyes. That may not be your intention, but that's how it's coming across.

And what, actually, is a "true" marriage? Each country and culture has its own laws and regulations regarding marriage. Since you're so traditional about religion, then you'd do well to remember that in the Old Testament, many of the men and prophets had multiple wives and nothing was said about it. Frankly, marriage has had a really convoluted history in this country as well.

It wasn't all that long ago that the government wasn't even involved in it at all, there was no legal definition of it and there were no federal laws or benefits regarding it. It was an individual contract between two people or two families, the government wasn't involved.

Since: Oct 09

Wagner, SD

#70 Apr 9, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not condone divorce except for extreme circumstances. And as for your second point, Sam actually explained it well.
Oh, boy. It is blatantly, patently obvious that you've never been married. LOL.

You'd make a great republican politician, who yammers about small government and keeping government out of people's lives and yet wants to intrusively stick that government into the very personal part of people's lives, where it assuredly does not belong in the least. It is not the business of the government who people love or how they should love them or live with. At all.

I bet you'd like to be friends with that genius state rep who wants to criminalize oral sex, even if it's consensual and within marriage. LOL.

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#71 Apr 9, 2013
More interesting is the fact that you have never broken a single law. Never!
You are the first person in recorded history to achieve that feat, not even the christ managed that.
Sam I Am GEAM wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, I see you're going the contradictory hyperbole route. Interesting. Translation: You have nothing and are being an ass just to be an ass.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#72 Apr 9, 2013
Hey Dog, the bone of contention is whether the agreement to obey is included in the vows or not.
A very favorite murder mystery book of mine debated just that point circa 1932.

Dorothy L Sayers, Busman's Honeymoon

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#73 Apr 9, 2013
Judge Janie wrote:
Oh, boy. It is blatantly, patently obvious that you've never been married. LOL.
I've never attempted to hide that fact. I'd rather proclaim I've never been married than to explain why I've been divorced three times.
Judge Janie wrote:
You'd make a great republican politician
Thanks! Can I count on your vote?!
Judge Janie wrote:
yammers about small government and keeping government out of people's lives and yet wants to intrusively stick that government into the very personal part of people's lives, where it assuredly does not belong in the least. It is not the business of the government who people love or how they should love them or live with. At all.
Except that "marriage" is a legal-binding contract identifying beneficiaries and birth-rights and taxes and all that. What the hell do you think the gays are screaming about? Should marriage be federally recognized and afforded all rights therein or should it be any Tom, Dick, and Harry's idea of a backyard pole barn weddin where anything goes and the guvment can butt out?
Judge Janie wrote:
I bet you'd like to be friends with that genius state rep who wants to criminalize oral sex, even if it's consensual and within marriage. LOL.


HELLS NO!

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#74 Apr 9, 2013
PEllen wrote:
Hey Dog, the bone of contention is whether the agreement to obey is included in the vows or not.
No, it ain't! Try to pay attention, that has almost nothing to do with anything regarding this discussion. If that is your "bone of contention," then you are completely missing the point.
PEllen wrote:
A very favorite murder mystery book of mine debated just that point circa 1932.
Dorothy L Sayers, Busman's Honeymoon
Yes! I've been begging my book club to add that to the top of our list!
pde

Gilberts, IL

#75 Apr 9, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that "marriage" is a legal-binding contract identifying beneficiaries and birth-rights and taxes and all that. What the hell do you think the gays are screaming about? Should marriage be federally recognized and afforded all rights therein or should it be any Tom, Dick, and Harry's idea of a backyard pole barn weddin where anything goes and the guvment can butt out?
You are aware that any Sue and Harry's idea of a backyard pole barn wedding is currently valid, as long as they are willing to pay the marriage license fee to their state? Nine US states still have heterosexual common law marriage, whereas if you present yourself as married for a certain period of time, you become considered married in the eyes of the law. And once you're recognized as common law married in those nine states, all the rest of the states also recognize you as married.

The only time when the federal government attempts to judge the validity of a heterosexual marriage is when immigration is involved.

There ARE people in the US getting into marriages primarily for medical insurance reasons, for example, and neither the government or the insurance companies are allowed to challenge the validity of a marriage of two American citizens.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#77 Apr 10, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never attempted to hide that fact. I'd rather proclaim I've never been married than to explain why I've been divorced three times.
<quoted text>
Thanks! Can I count on your vote?!
<quoted text>
Except that "marriage" is a legal-binding contract identifying beneficiaries and birth-rights and taxes and all that. What the hell do you think the gays are screaming about? Should marriage be federally recognized and afforded all rights therein or should it be any Tom, Dick, and Harry's idea of a backyard pole barn weddin where anything goes and the guvment can butt out?
<quoted text>
HELLS NO!
Legal marriage actually has little to no bearing on "birth rights" anymore. INheritance laws have been updated, thankfully.
Julie

Chicago, IL

#78 Apr 10, 2013
LW1: More proof of why 12-yr-olds shouldn't be allowed to marry. And breed. But kudos to you and your hubby, LW, for marrying Each Other, instead of inflicting yourselves on people who actually have a brain.
BTW, I hope you-all are saving up for years of therapy for your poor daughter.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

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.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min EditorAtLarge 1,659,775
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 18 min Thoughts and Prayers 105,380
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 18 min honeymylove 11,600
Trump is A 36 min Rose of Tralee 192
News Random act of kindness in turbulent world (Jan '10) 2 hr Greatful Nancy 2
US Media Humiliated, all in 1 day. 2 hr test 11
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 4 hr Ben Avraham 72,047

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages