Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from more info Monday, November 10, 2008 - 11:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Casper's most recent update ( April 6, 2008 www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/nesara/news/news.php )is a fairly accurate account of what has happened since 1933. However, he has, like most historians, missed perhaps the most crucial piece of the puzzle, namely the Exemption. By analogy, consider that when you go to prison, everything of value is taken from you - your time, your attention, your freedom, your ability to function as a contributing member of society, the option to apply your intellectual or manual skills. Even your property is of no use to you if you cannot benefit from ownership. When government does this, it must assume total responsibility for you and pay your way. So, your food, clothing, housing/shelter, medical care, etc are provided because that is the State\'s legal responsibility. Likewise, when the UNITED STATES declared bankruptcy, pledged all Americans as collateral against the national debt, and confiscated all gold, eliminating the means by which you could pay, it also assumed legal responsibility for providing a new way for you to pay, and it did that by providing what is known as the Exemption, an exemption from having to pay for anything. In practical terms, though, this meant giving each American something to pay with, and that \"something\" is your credit. Your value to society was then and still is calculated using actuarial tables and at birth, bonds equal to this \"average value\" are created. I understand that this is currently between one and two million dollars. These bonds are collateralized by your birth certificate which becomes a negotiable instrument. The bonds are hypothecated, traded until their value is unlimited for all intents and purposes, and all that credit created is technically and rightfully yours. In point of fact, you should be able to go into any store in America and buy anything and everything in sight, telling the clerk to charge it to your Exemption account, which is identified by a nine-digit number that you will recognize as your Social Security number without the dashes. It is your EIN, which stands for Exemption Identification Number. However, the clever rascals have done everything in their power to block your access to your own credit by creating the corporate fiction which is a trust identified by your name in all capital letters. It is commonly referred to as your strawman. It is a Debtor, like all corporate entities under the bankruptcy because it is a subset of the bankrupt debtor government. It is not you, but you unknowingly serve as the Trustee for this fiction, manage it for a lifetime, and are legally liable for any and all debts it incurs unless by adminstrative means you lay claim to any and all value it might contain by creating a security agreement between you and it. Once you have done this no other fiction can have any dealings with your fiction without your express permission as a Creditor to and creator of its value. It cannot even be sued without your permission. In fact, no court, government agency, law enforcement agency, attorney, or other corporate entity can transact business of any kind with the strawman without your permission. It is the one thing that every judge has drilled into his head, that the court must have your consent before it can prosecute your strawman, rule, put you in jail (you, the unwitting surety for the strawman which as a fiction cannot be put in jail), because it is not you that they are prosecuting, it is the strawman, and because it is your property, they need your consent for their fiction court or attorney to transact business (under admiralty/commercial UCC law) with your strawman. The person in the black robe sitting in front of a court is a man on the land operating a corporate fiction called a court, which can only do business with another fiction, your strawman. If you have ever looked at a Summons and Complaint, which typically starts a legal proceeding/suit, you will see the identities of the parties involved as Plaintiff and Defendant, are always spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, because they are fictions. Cleverer still, the UNITED STATES contracted with the Federal Reserve to use its private, copyrited scrip, the Federal Reserve note, for all debts both private and public, and that private scrip can only be brought into the PUBLIC, the corporate domain that is the system we currently live in, through a chartered banking institution or a pass-through account, and that pass-through account is your limited liability social security account. Anyone bringing money into the PUBLIC in any other way can be charged with money laundering. With that groundwork laid, we come to the greatest scam of all, the use of your credit without your permission or knowledge. In a debt-based system such as the one we use under the national bankruptcy of 1933, all value is created through lending, and what you lend is credit because there is no longer any money. The government took it all away. As previously stated, every living soul in the system has the right and, albeit cleverly hidden, the ability to create credit. Only a living soul whose value to society has been denominated in bonds collateralized by evidence of his physical birth, has access to credit except for fictions such as banks which are chartered by the government, given the franchise to create credit. However, when you sit down with a banker to \"take out a loan\", you sign a promissory note, and on the strength of your signature, the loan, which is really a draw on your own credit, originally created to satisfy a legal requirement to provide you with a means to pay, is created, but you are led to believe that the bank is lending you its assets so that it is entitled to repayment of principle plus interest. Wrong. The bank is using your credit to create the loan and then demanding that you pay back something that belongs to you. This means that all loans are fraudulent because under the terms of the contract, whether it is a mortgage, a line of credit, a credit card account, a car loan. or any other loan, the truth of the matter was not fully divulged, and no contract can stand as legitimate and lawful unless all the terms of the agreement were shared with the \"borrower\". In fact, the bank deposits the promissory note that you sign just as it would a check that you wrote. It flips it over and endorses it, creates a special demand-type account, deposits it, then carries the loan on its books first as an asset and secondly as a liability owed to YOU. Of course, they never tell you this, but it is true. If you are willing to risk having your accounts at the bank shut down, try asking a branch manager exactly what happens to a promissory note. But I digress. The fact is, you have unlimited credit, and there is a burgeoning community of Americans who are learning to lawfully access and utilize this credit to settle their commercial affairs. It\'s quite a tussle, because the Powers do not want to cooperate. The government was legally required to provide you with a means to pay anything anytime, but it did not see that it was obligated to show you how to access it, so it has taken many years of patriots working very hard to uncover and develop the means to do just that - use their credit to better their lives and those of their loved ones. It is the ultimate gift in this system, and one that you should be grateful that people are devoting their lives to. In summary, in our debt-based system, all value is created by lending in order to discharge, not pay, another debt/obligation. The value behind this lending is credit. For you, this credit was based on your personal worth and was created by bonds collateralized by your birth certiificated and valued according to actuarial tables. This credit, your Exemption, is all yours, authorized under the terms of the bankruptcy and HJR192 to replace the gold confiscated by the government. The government and all its subsets have tried very hard for many decades to keep the fact of this value from you, and structured your interface with the rest of the corporate world so that you have acted as the surety for a Debtor fiction, your strawman. The predictable effect of this has been your personal amnesia, forgetting who you really are, a Creditor, while the government has pillaged your credit for its own uses, leaving you enslaved without even knowit it, this the ultimate deception and fraud. wetc@ashlandhome.net (Added by Mr. Cantwell on April 7, 2008) Accessing and utilizing your credit lawfully, safely, and wisely requires considerable education in just who you are in relation to the CORPORATION and your strawman. This process takes time. It requires you relearn your role in society. It requires courage and conviction to go against everything you have been told all your life. It requires responsible teachers and well-developed technology. Two teachers head the class at this time, although there are many contributing to this relearning process. They are Winston Shrout (www.winstonshroutsolutionsincommerce.com and Dr. Sam Kennedy who can be heard live at www.republicbroadcasting.org every Sunday evening at 9 PM EDT. This is not for the faint at heart; your success will depend less on the technology than on your temperament and you are strongly advised not to do anything until you really understand what you are about to do. Only you can judge your readiness but missteps can be costly and dangerous. (Added by Mr. Cantwell on April 8, 2008) Sender Message: I have received numerous queries regarding the Exemption article, and judging from their tone, I think I must put the current state of the Exemption access technology in perspective. The technologies are primarily for satisfying current debt obligations, i.e. mortgages, foreclosures, credit card balances, judgments, liens,court cases, and incarcerations. They are not well suited for putting cash in your pocket, even though that is what some may want. Some ongoing research aims to do this, but it is questionable at best and I do not recommend trying anything like this. Kennedy and Shrout focus on teaching people to navigate the turbulent tides of modern commerce, not make a quick buck, and it would be a disservice to you and to these brave men to suggest otherwise. The personal journey into discovery of your status as a Creditor to the bankruptcy (they hold all your assets, therefore they owe you) starts with understanding that every interaction in the corporate world starts with an offer, whether it is a bill from JC Penney, the IRS, a subpoena, a performance bond, or a lawsuit. They are all offers to expand funds under public policy, and as a creditor you come to recognize them as such. Each offer can be responded to with acceptance of the terms and payment using your credit. For example, a lawsuit is an offer to contract and the court functions as a bank, using double-entry accrual accounting wherein the \"charges\" are entered on one side of the ledger and the escrow remains open until the case is \"settled\" (settlement and closure of the account). Sadly, our legal system has degenerated to the point where every legal case is about making money, and lots of it. Judges rule in equity, not on law; they are not really judges, but administrators, and are not obligated to follow what you think is law, only Public Policy and the UCC. In conclusion, if you embark on this learning process, you will be astounded by what you discover is the true nature of our system. I have exposed the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Go make snow cones. Allan Cantwell wetc@ashlandhome.net http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/uploads/bondservant/bcertP.pdf (reply to this comment)

from simple answer. Profit! Monday, November 10, 2008 - 10:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Registration vs. Recording “Registration” comes from Latin “rex, regis” etc. meaning regal. So think about what occurs to whatever you ‘register’ - you hand legal title over to the Crown. When you register anything with the public, it releases legal title to the government corporation and leaves you with only equitable title - the right to use, not own, and for that use you will pay a ‘use’ tax which is every tax, be it income, sin, sales, property, etc. as opposed to lawful taxes, excise and impost. So that it doesn’t appear that the government now owns the property which you have registered they put it in a name which so much resembles your own that you won’t suspect it, however, the NAME is owned by the government. If you choose rather to record your legal title to your property with the public, you maintain your status as Title Owner. This is one of the most important things you can ever learn for the sake of your commercial affairs. The best example of the effects of registration is the birth certificate. A bankrupt entity - city, state/province, country - cannot operate in commerce. So how do they manage? Since USA/CA have been bankrupt for decades, having no substance such as gold and silver to back it, the only asset it has are men and women and our labour. We are the collateral for the interest on the loan of the World Bank. Each of us is registered, via the application for a birth certificate. The Treasury issues a bond on the birth certificate and the bond is sold at a securities exchange and bought by the FRB/BoC, which then uses it as collateral to issue bank notes. The bond is held in trust for the Feds at the Depository Trust Corporation. We are the surety on said bonds. Our labour/energy is then payable at some future date. Hence we become the ‘transmitting utility’ for the transmission of energy. The USG/CAG, in order to provide necessary goods and services, created a commercial bond (promissory note), by pledging the property, labour, life and body of its citizens, as payment for the debt (bankruptcy). This commercial bond made chattel (property) out of us all. We became nothing more than ‘human resources’ and collateral for the debt. This was without our knowledge and/or our consent, via the filing (registration) of our birth certificates. When mums apply for a birth certificate, the application is registered. The legal title of her baby is then transferred from mum to the State. Mum is left with equitable title of her baby whom she can use for a fee - a ‘use tax’ - and since the property does not belong to her, she has to treat it in the manner which the owner wants. Colonel Edward Mandell House is attributed with giving a very detailed outline of the plans to be implemented to enslave the American people. He stated, in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President 1913 - 1921), "Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological property (that's you and your children) in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattels (property) and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading (Birth Certificate) to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debts to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud, which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and we will employ the high office (presidency) of our dummy corporation (USA) to foment this plot against America.” - Colonel Edward Mandell House This is why I coach those who intend to ‘marry’ not to sign anything. Centuries ago, a man put a ring on a woman’s finger and declared, “With this ring, I thee wed”. Family members were the witnesses and that was it. There was no state-issued licence to sign ... frightful! Children can be taken from their parents because of the marriage licence. Do not invite into your private contract a third party which happens to be public, cares not about the interests of the other two parties, and has every legal right to force them to acquiesce to its demands. Your marriage ceases to be your own; the third party will tell you if and when you can end the marriage; the third party will dictate that your children will: 1. require a birth certificate and SSN/SIN 2. require a gov’t-directed (AMA/CMA) doctor to attend to his health, 3. be vaccinated by mandate, 4. attend the Public Fool System, 5. be prescribed and drugged by Ritalin, 6. sign up with the armed forces, etc. Your child will be a ‘ward of the state’ and the state will have prior say in what IT thinks is best for your child - you will not have jurisdiction over him. The birth certificate created a FICTION (the name of the baby in upper case letters). The state/ province sells the birth certificate to the Commerce Department of the corporations of USA/CA, which in turn places a bond on the birth certificate thereby making it a negotiable instrument, and placing the fiction, called a STRAWMAN, into the warehouse of the corporations of USA/CA. Representation for the created fiction was given to the BAR (British Accredited Registry/Regency), owned and operated by the Crown, for the purpose of contracting the fiction (which most of us think is ourselves) into a third party action. Do not underestimate the power behind this trick. It is to con us into contracting with the feds so that they can ‘legally’ confiscate our property. All these contracts have only our signatures on them because corporate fictions cannot contract (only natural beings have the right to contract - and the right not to contract). Because there is no full disclosure - we are never told that we have just signed away what we believe to be our property - these contracts are fraudulent, and hence, we are still the lawful owner and the profit earned by the feds from selling securities (our property) belongs to us and must go into a fund for our benefit, otherwise it would be fraud. Not wanting to be charged with fraud, the feds had to create a remedy for us ...and hope we wouldn’t discover it. For decades, through its ‘public’ school system, the government has managed to deceive us about some very important facts. All facets of the media (print, radio, television) have an ever-increasing influence in our lives and are controlled by government and its agencies, via the issuance of licences. We have slowly and systematically been led to believe that any form of our names represents us, which is not so. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (reply to this comment)

From who is using your bond/unlimited credit? Monday, November 10, 2008, 11:17 (Agree/Disagree?) [COPORATE GOVERNMENT] "Expands and conquers by deceit and fraud. and uses "words of art" to deceive. Convinces Americans to utilize such words and terms as "Residence," "Reside", and "US citizen," regional designations (fictional overlays) such as "CA", "NV", "TX" etc. in addresses to expand its venue and control, and to obtain "Certificates of Birth" and to sign up for "Social Security" to gain and maintain jurisdiction." "Today, almost all mothers, black or white, unknowingly inform on their own babies. Take a look at the so-called "Birth Certificate" CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH where the mother signs and you will see the title of the box stating in small print: "MOTHER OR OTHER INFORMANT". The word "OTHER" makes the mother "an informant." By signing the "Birth Certificate" as an informer, she contracts with the government putting her child and her child's future labor as collateral for the national debt (servitude--slavery). The father or mother can rescind the contract within three business days (Truth-in-Lending). Since the Birth Certificate neither lists the father as the husband nor lists the wife's acceptance of the father’s surname as her own but has the mother’s maiden name instead, the baby is considered a BASTARD. Bastards are therefore under the care and control of the Priest Rule (democracy) and can be taken from the mother at any time. The hospitals receive a fairly large monetary benefit ($3,000, more or less, per child) from the corporate government for having Birth Certificates filled out and signed." "People become surety for the debt by a number of different ways. One way is by a Birth Certificate when the baby's footprint is placed thereon before it touches the land. The certificate is recorded at a County Recorder, then sent to a Secretary of State which sends it to the Bureau of Census of the Commerce Department. This process converts a man's life, labor, and property to an asset of the US government when this person receives a benefit from the government such as a drivers license, food stamps, free mail delivery, etc. This person becomes a fictional persona in commerce. The Birth Certificate is an unrevealed "Trust Instrument" originally designed for the children of the newly freed black slaves after the 14th Amendment. The US has the ability to tax and regulate commerce." "Bond Servant: To cover the debt in 1933 and future debt, the corporate government determined and established the value of the future labor of each individual in its jurisdiction to be $630,000. A bond of $630,000 is set on each Certificate of Live Birth. The certificates are bundled together into sets and then placed as securities on the open market. These certificates are then purchased by the Federal Reserve and/or foreign bankers. The purchaser is the "holder" of "Title." This process made each and every person in this jurisdiction a bond servant." The following is excerpted from http://irwinschiff.homestead.com/JoyceRosenwald.html RESTRUCTURING OUR LIVES - WHAT INDIVIDUALS CAN DO. A.) People who receive Social Security money. The elderly people who are receiving Social Security benefits, or are nigh to receiving benefits, should consider refusing to receive the benefits if they can financially do without them, or if they can continue to work. They should also see if their children or other family members can help them in their financial situation if they need it now, or if they cannot work as much or at all in the near future. Children should understand that it is their God-given duty before God to care for their parents in their old age (Exodus 20:12; I Timothy 5:. However, those elderly people who are unable to do without their Social Security money because of their situation should not be held in ill repute for the following reasons: 1. They were deceived all of their lives by our government into thinking that Social Security was insurance, or a pension, or that there were little individual accounts that they were paying into and when they turn 65 they’ll get it back. They were deceived all of their lives, therefore they were planning on having this money in their old age. They did not structure their lives to do without it. Now, in their old age, it could be impossible for them to restructure to do without it with as few years as they have left to live. 2. Many elderly people have children who refuse to do their God-given duty and care for their parents in their old age. These children have believed the Statist lie that their parents should be cared for by the State and not by them. 3. We are dealing with generational sin when it comes to Social Security. When the people of God see a sin which has been going on for generations in their midst, and repent of it, it can be so imbedded in the culture that it takes time and much restructuring to root it out (read Nehemiah). B.) No young Christian should receive Social Security benefits. No Christian should be receiving SSI benefits. We should not get our children Social Security numbers. We should all work to see the Social Security system abolished. (Important note. When your child is born at a hospital, the hospital personnel will come to you and ask that you fill out the birth certificate form and check the box to receive a Social Security number for your child. Refuse to do so. Just record your child’s birth in your Family Bible. If they try to tell you that you cannot leave the hospital unless you fill out the birth certificate form and check the box to receive a Social Security number, just ask them "what are the terms of this kidnapping?" They will back off real fast. Remember, receiving a Social Security number is voluntary. So is receiving a birth certificate. You are not required to sign for or fill out either. You need to know that many hospitals now automatically apply for your child to get a Social Security number when you fill out the birth certificate form. You need neither (regardless of what they tell you) and you’re wise not to fill out or sign for either.) RESTRUCTURING OUR LIVES - WHAT CHURCHES CAN DO. God uses the wicked for His purposes. Sometimes He uses what the wicked do for good in His people’s lives. What they mean for evil, God can use for good. Social Security looks like tyranny, and it is. But God could use it to get His people out of their safety zones. Upon recognizing Social Security for what it is, namely idolatry, Christians could begin new jobs, new trades, entrepreneurship could explode, a parallel economy could be established, Christian colleges could begin to set up their own accreditation boards rather than going to the pagans for accreditation. Or some of God’s people might consider more earnestly going into the ministry or into missions. We need to have compassion, band together, and help each other out in restructuring our lives to be free and not part of the idolatrous Social Security system. A.) Churches should preach about Social Security. The Bible speaks to all matters of life. The pulpits in America need to condemn this system for what it is - blatant idolatry. Pastors need to preach sermons about The Bible and Social Security, and expose it for what it is. In 1976, economist Jodie Allen, who is a socialist, wrote an article in the Washington Post entitled Social Security: The Largest Welfare Program. She details the response she received and what she learned: I was deluged with calls and letters from the guardians of the Social Security system saying, "Gee, Jodie, we always liked you but how could you say this." I acted very politely and I said, "Well, what’s the matter with this, isn’t it true?" And they said, "Oh, yes, it’s true, but once you start saying this kind of thing, you don’t know where it’s going to end up." Then I came to perceive that Social Security was not a program, it was a religion. It’s very hard to reform a religion. And it is a religion. Social Security is socialism. Socialism puts man at the center, and makes the State god. As a religion, the State has every intention of enforcing its law/order. By the State demanding that we trust in it for our needs, it is usurping the place of God. It is demanding that it be recognized as God. This idolatrous system should be condemned by pulpits in America, and people should be called upon to repent of their idolatry for receiving from it or paying homage to it. B.) Churches should stand with those who are persecuted by the State. Our congregation has every intention of helping the family that’s still waiting to hear from the IRS. Churches should make sure they stand with families who are harassed by the IRS. This includes helping them finance a fight in the courts, or staging an effort with Congressmen to get new laws passed to see that the harassment ceases. C.) Churches should help those families that are in need. There are times when the burden to meet a family member’s needs becomes too great for the family alone. In such times, the church should step forward to help. An elderly person upon recognizing the idolatry of Social Security might want to no longer be a part of it, but simply cannot afford not receiving all or some of the money. The church should consider what it might be able to do in such a situation. A system should be established within the church whereby people can approach the deacons when they are in serious need. (Important note. We are not to be moving people from a statist welfare system to an ecclesiastical welfare system. It is primarily the family’s responsibility to care for the needs of its members. The church steps in to help only when the need becomes too great.) D.) Churches should help organize apprenticeships. This is important if we are going to see the next generation raised to know what it means to be a freeman. Churches could hold meetings with their men and women to brainstorm as how to live in this culture without a Social Security number. The meetings could also serve to hook young people up with other men or women in the church who could apprentice them in a trade. We must restructure and begin to rebuild the wall. FINAL NOTE - the Church of old versus the present day Church. Some will say, "Though I participate in the Social Security system, it is not idolatrous because I know in my heart that the State isn’t God, nor am I trusting in the government to meet my needs." We must remember however, idolatry is not just a condition of the heart - it is an action. The early Church could have easily said, "You know that I don’t believe that the Emperor is God, Lord. I know he’s a false god. You also know, Lord, that if I don’t throw in this pinch of incense I will be jailed and well, I have a responsibility to provide for my family. You know my heart, Lord." They could have easily justified and rationalized throwing in the pinch of incense. But they didn’t because they knew that idolatry wasn’t just a condition of the heart - it was an action, and by throwing in the incense they were committing idolatry. (reply to this comment)

from info on marriage, birth etc.. Monday, November 10, 2008 - 10:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Marriage In America, people with children are usually married --- with a corporate state granted marriage license. Now, everybody knows that a license is “permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal’; and, Where Common Law marriages are lawfully recognized in every state, it is not otherwise illegal married without a license. Remember how you first learned about common law marriages. I was walking to school with a friend. A new family had just moved into the neighborhood and my friend told me that they had a common law marriage. I asked, “What is that?” My friend told me it meant they had lived together in sin for over seven years, so now their marriage was legal. Most of us learned about marriage from parents, churches, or from school. But, did we learn the whole truth? The truth is that the seven year rule is common law. It’s even Biblical. It’s a property law called the “Law of Jubilee”, which says that every seven years (grand jubilee = 50 years) all debts are forgiven, and whatever has been called something for seven years, or more, is what it was called. Though a responsibility in marriage is proven by jubilee, that is not the limits of common law marriage. Common law marriage is defined by “agreement” and “consent”. Jubilee proves the existence of both agreement and consent, because if you haven’t contested the union within seven years jubilee says you waived your right to contest it and therefore you gave your consent by tacit admission. In a common law marriage the “agreement” is between the spouses to be, they must agree to be married. “Consent: comes from the father of the bride. He must agree to give his daughter to the bridegroom. Under common law, if a couple has both agreement and consent they are married. That’s all there is to it. The moment agreement and consent are in place the bride and groom are married, and that marriage can then be lawfully consummated. Marriage often result in the creation of children. Children are created in the image of God. Therefore such a union is sacred and often tied to a great deal of ceremony, religion, pomp, and circumstance. Now, back to the “License”. Marriage License Whereas, “license” means permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal’; and, Whereas, it is not otherwise illegal to be married under the law; and, Whereas, the only other reason it would be unlawful for two consenting adults to be married is if they ware otherwise incompetent; Therefore, if a couple goes to “the state” and asks for the state a license, where there is no other reason for them to need a license other than incompetence, in law, those requesting a license must be incompetent because that is the only reason they could possibly need a license. Now, one must ask, “When a bride and groom are incompetent to be married without a state license and that state grants that license, Who is responsible for the marriage?” Answer: The grantor, the state. Who is responsible for anything created in such a license marriage? Answer: The grantor, the state. And, what, typically, is the only thing “created” in such a marriage? Answer: Children. So I ask you, “Who do the children created in a state license marriage belong to?” Answer: They belong to the state. Believe it, or not. Just check out the evidence: Evidence #1 --- The state social services stand their authority on a doctrine called “Parens Patria” which is Latin for “parent by the country”. In modern usage parens patria is understood to mean “the state is the parent” [if you’d like to see an in depth WARN report on this doctrine let us know]. Evidence #2 --- When U.S. doctors deliver chidren from the womb they are required to create a document known as a: Record of Live Birth. Is it given to you? No. You’re given a: Birth Certificate. So what happens to the Record of Live Birth? It’s sent to the, “BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS”. And what is that? It is a subdepartment of the “DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE”. And, what is the, “DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE”. It is where the U.S. keeps track of its possessions. This evidence indicated that the state is declaring the children as their possession at birth. Evidence #3 --- New statutes require hospitals to assign Social Security Numbers to each child before birth, or without the natural parents signature or permission. (read “Independence Day” in this issue) Evidence #4 --- Why are each of the childbirth performing hospitals in the U.S. registered as “Ports of Entry” into the U.S. when virtually none of them have incoming foreigners? Evidence #5 --- Birth records and Census reports are used as collateral for U.S. loans and as proof of the subservient nature of the people under control of the U.S. government. It’s Scary. It’s proof of the war. It’s fulfillment of Biblical prophesy. And, if we don’t do something to change things we’ll have no promise from the King of Kings (other than judgment). First we learn what happened. In times past, there were no licenses of marriage except in cases where it was unlawful to otherwise marry. For example, Biblical Law forbids the intermarriage of races, so, the statutes of this nation (which were based on Biblical law) prohibited marriage between persons of different races. If a white person wanted to marry a black or an Indian they were, by statute, required to get a license. Marriage records were kept in family Bibles, then in the County Clerk and Recorder’s offices. Statutes were created to allow anyone desiring a license to obtain one. Churches were used to assist in getting people to use marriage licenses as a manner or recording marriages. Over time people began to believe the licenses were required by law, even though they were otherwise incompetent. Now, remember, the promise given to Israel, was that if we maintain our stewardship, we’ll inherit the earth. Our stewardship starts with our families. Isn’t it ironic that the document typically used to being a marriage is the same document used by the corporate state to remove our children from us? And nobody ever even warned us, because government employees were just doing their jobs. Whenever we discover we’ve erred, we can repent. The error was asking the state of a marriage license. Repenting includes fixing the damage. Some people would tell you that to remove the marriage license you have to revoke or rescind your signature from the request for the license. However, as a matter of law, revoking or rescinding a signature admits that you signed it in the first place. What if you never signed the request for license? Then there would be no license in existence. In contract law there is no signature if full disclosure is not given with presentation of the agreement. In the case of the marriage license, if you used one, you were likely not informed that: 1. The grantor of the license is a privately owned corporation; 2. licensing with them wasn’t necessary for you to be married; 3. If you request a license from them you were declaring yourself incompetent; and, 4. You were signing over possession of your future children to them as collateral. Therefore, if 1, 2, 3 and/or 4 above are true in your case then the contracting license is void, without signature from the beginning. So what about your marriage? Legal & Lawful Marriage Well think about it. If the two of you want to get a “required” license, you must have had agreement. And, if you had her fathers blessing you had his consent and therefore under common law (and/or Biblical Law) you were married without the license before the license was issued. The churches rightfully want people to have “legal and lawful” marriages. A common law marriage is a “lawful” marriage, meaning it fulfills law. The accent in the lawful marriage is the fact the parties of the marriage have an agreement, they have the father’s consent, and they are bound by their acceptance of, and consummation of, the marriage. A “legal” marriage indicated a written contract or marriage. The accent in the legal marriage is the document that binds the marriage. All you have to do to make a lawful common law marriage a “legal and lawful” marriage is make a legal record of the union made under common law. In other words, if you legally record your contract of marriage with the County Clerk and Recorder. Such a record is a legal record and the common law marriage is both a lawful fact and a matter of legal record, i.e. “legal and lawful”. If your original marriage agreement was verbal, you can later legally reduce it to writing and make it binding from the first moment of your agreement and consent by making your contract “nunc pro tune”, which means, “now as if then.”. Knowing these things prior to marriage on some interesting questions especially if you or the father of the bride have religious beliefs (like I do) that cause you to desire to go through an ecclesiastic leader that may be unaware of the truth and therefore believes that you have to have a state issued marriage license. The solution is simple. If it was me, I would obey the law. With agreement and consent, I would: Create a Notice of Marriage stating that: I and my spouse to be have an agreement to marry, show that we have consent of the bride’s father, and, give notice of the intended ceremony which when performed will bind, seal, and/or begin the Marriage union. I would have all related parties sign the document. I would then go to the County Clerk and Recorder’s office and legally record the Notice with the marriage licenses. I would then get a couple of state certified copies of the Notice. I would take a state certified copy to the ecclesiastic leader as evidence of the legal right to lawfully marry. In Law your Notice has a greater authority than the state issued marriage license. The authority you will be using is the authority of common law in original jurisdiction, as was endowed upon man by birth. It is the same authority and power that makes you sovereign. It follows law. The Notice is in accord with the laws of the individual states and is binding. Taking your Family back This problem started many years ago. It wont’ be removed overnight. The state took charge of our stewardships because we allowed them to. People are a great source of wealth. If the state can convince you that you are under their control, as their asset or subject, then you won’t control them. We are living with allege contractual bonds to parens patria, and we have been doing so in condemnation for at least three generations. It’s time we recognized the truth. It’s time to take responsibility for our families, our stewardships, and our lives. Removing the marriage license won’t remove the entire problem in and of itself. It will, however, remove the foundation upon which the state builds its entire “parents patria” doctrine. With the state’s foundation removed you’ve taken the first step to prepare for any battle that may come up where the state attempts to use social workers, or other forces, to interfere with your family. You’ll be beginning to act like the sovereign that you are. If your marriage is not made under their authority, they have no lawful right to interfere with your family unless you invite them to. Step two: Stop inviting them to solve your family problems. Be self reliant. It doesn’t’ mean that they won’t ever interfere. It does mean that if they do you’ve disarmed their #1 weapon. You’ll need to learn more and to prepare to turn back any attack they bring against you, but foundationally you’ll be ready. Even after we resolve our marriages, the problem is that the system that set up the parens patria system of control still exists and government officials still want us to believe we are their incompetent servants. We need to solve that problem by eliminating the incompetence. Thus: Step three: You’re sovereign and therefore you’re responsible, so start acting like it. Learn the Law --- Obey and apply it, and when others trespass against you or yours, mercifully and justly hold them accountable to their trespasses. Accountability is the key. If you’ll do it you’ll be well on the path to true freedom and liberty, and we’ll get our nation back. Team Law can help. That’s why we’re here, to help people wake up and learn the law. Re-tie Family Ties Typically for about the same reasons we had the marriage license problem we have the problem or raising our children in that same system that taught us that we needed to have the marriage license. That system that wanted us to be incompetent workers providing all of the “government’s needs”, believing that the “government” was supposed to provide our needs. When in reality we are responsible for providing all of our own needs and government’s responsibility is to insure that our rights and property aren’t trespassed. The question is, “What are we allowing that system to teach our children?” You don’t have to take your children out of the public school system. Though many have, successfully. Within the public school system you do have to take an active part. At the very least pay attention to what your children are learning. I’m not talking about the school’s alleged subject matter. I’m talking about the public school’s end results: drugs, immorality, and crime. You decide what’s best of your children. After all, ultimately, when it comes time for you to stand accountable for your stewardship, you won’t be able to blame the school for the outcome. After all, you are the sovereign. You are master/mistress, they are supposed to be your (public) servant. _________________ more detailed articles on this here http://www.thewomenwarriors.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=483 (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, November 10, 2008, 16:19 (Agree/Disagree?) There's this thing that really helps when you're trying to impress upon a reader massive pieces of information.  Perhaps you've heard of it.  It's called a summary. However, I do like the tone of this particular comment, as it kind of puts the whole "same sex marriage" debate into its proper perspective, doesn't it?  The government has no right to interfere with marriage, or even force people to get a marriage liscence (according to this), so how can they possibly have the right to tell you you can't marry someone of the same sex?(reply to this comment)

from colden Sunday, November 09, 2008 - 18:33 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm unsure so I'll ask; are you saying every marriage that doesn't end in a double peace full death is non succesful? what (if any) are your criteria for a good marrage? oh and I love you madly! (reply to this comment)

From madly Sunday, November 09, 2008, 20:48 (Agree/Disagree?) That is too long a conversation to begin this evening, and why in the world would you say that you love me?(reply to this comment)

From colden Friday, November 28, 2008, 15:21 (Agree/Disagree?) I was thinking about what one could do "madly" when the words to a song came to me "don't you love her madly, don't you need her badly, don't you love her as she's walking out the door, like she's done one hundred times before" for reasons too abstract to recount this seemed to fit. Truely wasn't my intention to hurt. By the way when I'm really serious I substitute "I love you" with "my head totaly up my ass for your magical vagina" I find it helps me keep perspective ;)(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, November 10, 2008, 05:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Chill Madly, he probably meant he loves your articles.(reply to this comment)

From madly Monday, November 10, 2008, 06:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Get lost, Samuel. You are soooo freaking annoying!(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 04:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Well Madly, sometimes annoying people is necessary.  All I was saying was give the guy a break, he just signed up at the site a week ago.  Go easy on him.  But considering your response to his poem, I think you've figured that out on your own. Considering this article, though, I find it a bit ironic that you call me annoying.  Love is supposed to be something beautiful, and you make it look so sad and depressing in this article.  I understand that you are not looking for something permanent, but that does not mean that it can't exist for other people.  And it doesn't mean that it couldn't exist for you if you decided you wanted to start looking for it.  There are songs that I find annoying because of their rosy outlook about love (such as TF's "Touch of Love" or Jessica Simpson's "I Think I'm In Love"), but your dark depressing ideas about love are just as annoying!  Why can't there be a balance?  Love is not always sad, neither is it always wonderful. Then you overanalyze everything.  For one thing, that's my job :), and I'm getting better at not doing that.  And you get upset at the littlest things.  All he said was that he "loves you".  Considering that he has never met you, never even seen a picture of you, he just found out about "you" last week, and this is being posted on one of your articles as a comment, it could quite safely be assumed that he was talking about your article.  Why you insist on jumping on him for it is beyond me.  Sometimes I just don't get you, Madly. Take care of yourself.  (reply to this comment)

From shikaka Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 15:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Samuel, I'm pretty sure that the warm fuzzy feelings your pocket pussy gives you is not love. Have you ever been in a relationship?....with a girl? You are about as qualifed to share your enlightened thoughts on love as I am to lecture on string theory. (reply to this comment)

From madly Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 12:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Seriously, Sam… Fuck Off! You get more obnoxious and annoying every passing year. For those of you new to this site, believe me, Sammy asks for it, begs for it, and if you only knew, you would understand. Defend him all you want, it won’t help him; it will only reinforce his retarded state of social awareness.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 18:10 (Agree/Disagree?) So calling someone an idiot is a cop-out to you, but calling someone retarded is not?  Just so you all know, I do not need to be defended right now.  For one thing, I can stand up for myself to these kind of irrational attacks.  For another thing, Madly has based her response to me based not on logical thought processes, but on insults instead, a clear sign that she is at a disadvantage.  Madly, I would expect this kind of illogical, irrational behavior from scarface, but not from you.  Surely you have the intellectual abilities to give an answer for my response to you.  But you choose to take the lazy road instead.  I don't get it Madly, you are better than that.  Even brain damaged Shikaka was able to at least touch on a rebuttal to my comments. I have many things going through my head right now.  I remember going to Boca Raton my senior year to sing at the festival here in Florida.  It's about 6 hours away from here, so this was a class field trip.  We didn't mind, we were missing a day of school!  Anyway, there was this girl Allison on the bus that always flirted with all the guys in the chorus, kind of like you and the chatroom (there is nothing wrong with that).  They had a special group for the seniors called "The Madrigal Singers" that get to wear cool costumes and travel around the country and the world during the summer on a singing tour.  It looks great on a college application.  They were very popular, everyone in the chior and most of the school looked up to them.  She had straight blonde hair, a smile like an angel, nice T&A, just an all around fun person that lived to make jokes and liked to have the spotlight on her.  And I was sitting behind her on the bus.  She had suggested before that we all break out of our hotel rooms and go out for pizza afterwards.  The two guys I roomed with had already suggested having it delivered, but hey, I would ditch the guys in a second to go and have fun with the girls, and my parents did give me $30 for my trip.  "We'd probably get into a whole lot of trouble for that,though, wouldn't we?", she finally answered, winking at me.  She knew I would never be up for anything that could get me and everyboidy else in trouble.  The teacher told us if anyone broke out of their rooms he'd cancel the trip, festival, solos, and send the medals or trophies back.  He lied.  You'll see later. We got "Superior" ratings from all three judges.  But we got back to our rooms real late- 12:30 at night.  As the teacher came by and taped all our doors shut, I remembered what Allison had told me before, that she was going to sneak out of her hotel room and visit us.  So I went to the balcony and took a look outside.  It was beautiful, you could stare down at all Boca Raton from this room, ten stories up I think it was.  I was looking at the pool, and I hear Allison call me.  She was just three rooms away, standing on the same balcony, on the same floor looking at me.  I smiled at her.  She smiled back and laughed.  She put her hands on the bar as if she were about to climb on top of it and asked "So, you want me to come visit?" She asked the wrong guy.  The two other guys would have said "Yes" in an instant without even thinking about it.  All I could do was look at the ground 10 stories below, and think about the bar squeaking and rocking every time either of us leaned on it.  To even climb onto the bar, much less walk on it, would borderline on suicide.  I told her I wouldn't want her to hurt herself or get all of us in trouble.  After all, all of her roommates had solos in the morning, and they'd be pretty pissed at her if they all got canceled.  She asked if I was going to kiss her Good night.  I blew her a kiss.  She sent one back, and I went back inside- once she turned around of course.  I wasn't going to go back inside without getting another decent view of her ass. The next morning, I woke up alone in my part of the suite.  I could hear my mates in the other part talking as they packed thier bags.  Then I saw something that caught my eye.   I could hear laughter, and all I could see was something that looked blonde waving in the wind.  I could hear girls laughing outside.  After a few moments, the laughter stopped, but I could still see something waving in the wind.  Expecting the worst, I put my pants on under the sheets, and got up to find that it was just the outer covers of the curtains.  The laughter?  Well, the next hotel room had girls in it, and they must have just been laughing about something else.  And now, for the end of the story:  Allison broke out of her hotel room that night, went to a different kind of bar, found a guy she liked, convinved him that she was of legal age, and had him buy her a drink.  She got kicked out of the Madrigals for that stunt, and everything else festival related went just according to plan.  No medals or trophies sent back, no canceled solos. Why did I tell such a long story?  Because that is how I see my life now.  I am moving along, making progress, bettering myself.  I'm walking on that bar right now, Madly.  Yes, I'm moving slowly, very cautiously, watching my step to make sure I don't fall to my death ten stories below.  But I am getting there, and you cannot tell me that your way is right, and my way is wrong, that I'm retarded for choosing my way.  When I get there, that will be all that matters.  Scarface, you aren't even close, we are on completely seperate paths going to completely different destinations so for you to call me a moron just because I have a different way of getting there just shows your ignorance.  Shikaka, I am not even going to bother with you because your opinion is so insignificant in the grand scheme of things that what you say is of no consequence to me. Maybe you walk a little faster, but that's okay because we're all going to different levels of success.  But if you waste your time hanging out in one of the hotel rooms, mocking the people that are behind you, you will never get where you wanted to go.  So I pose this question to you Madly, Scarface, Shikaka, conan, and everyone else that has berated me: When I arrive at my destination of success (and I will, I am determined to do it), will you be there?  Will you be waiting for me with party hats, cake, and ice cream?  Will I see you along the way, and try to help you if I can?  Or will you be 15 blocks away, in the hotel room, fooling around, still making fun of the other people that should happen to be behind you at the moment?  Will you even notice that I ever passed you?  You think I'm annoying because I ask too many questions, Madly?  That is how we learn.  You think I'm annoying because I call you out on being mean to colden?  Yeah, I called you on that because that is not your nature.  That is not the Madly I grew to admire for her kindness and philosophical genius.  Yes, I said admire, it has nothing to do with love.  Madly is just a pseudonym for a person I have never met anyway.  Why would anyone fall in love with a pseudonym?  And as long as you define a crush as "someone you wouldn't mind kissing", then yes, there was a time when I had a crush on you.  But in reality I didn't, because your definition is ludircous.  I was dropping a subtle hint at that when I said what I did to you, and you apparently did not understand it.  You see, for women "someone you wouldn't mind kissing" might narrow the field down to specific guys.  For guys, that means about 90% of the single female population.  Yeah, men can be dogs, but who doesn't love dogs? Shikaka, the fact that you would refer to a woman or weak person as a pussy not only reveals that you most likely aren't getting any pussy lately, but it also reveals that you are completely clueless when it comes to feminist issues.  By referring to weak people as female genitalia, you are comparing their weakness to being women, as if all women were weak and all men were strong.  But look at Gary Coleman.  Look at Serena Williams.  Doesn't it trouble you that your stereotype can be traced back to the days before the women's movement?  I would expect this kind of talk from a pot bellied, Budweiser swigging Texas Redneck, not from you. Scarface, you antagonizing childish spoiled little brat!  That every insult you launch at me is greeted quickly with a thumbs down from the more rational members of the Moving On website doesn't seem to phase you, does it?  I guess it shouldn't, because your main purpose is to antagonize everyone and spread chaos, isn't it?  You glory in the idea of your little turds of wisdom being quickly and consistently spewed from our mouths once we have given your comments actual thought.  If Elvis was the King of Rock and Roll, and Michael Jackson was the Kind of Pop and King of Pedophiles in one, then you, my ignorant acquaintance, are the King of Loony Comments that are an insult to every thinking person's intelligence. One day I will make it to my destination on the bar.  When depends on my circumstances, my abilities, and the resources that are available to me.  My method of travel may be prone to setbacks, but opportunities abound as well.  When I get there, I hope you will all be happy for me.  Not because it means anything to me anymore, but for your own health.  Because to have such anger and hatred pent up is not good. That is all.    (reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Saturday, November 15, 2008, 20:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah Shikaka, everyone loves peanut butter dogs.........(reply to this comment)

From chaos* Thursday, November 13, 2008, 00:39 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't know Samuel, somehow I just couldn't keep myself from commenting on this one. I think you do have a crush on madly(By the way, my definition of "crush" is an attraction, physical or mental). You just seem quite a bit touchier to her criticism than to others. Scrolling back there were three sentences that could be taken as insults, and two pages comes across as a little overkill. It also sounded funny to me that you saying there was nothing wrong with flirting in the chatroom, almost as if you were giving your okay. I mean that sounded rather odd to me. All the time and space you took trying to be politically correct, just seems  to me like you are trying to use misdirection to veil your anger. The bits at the end about you surpassing everyone else and they being stuck as losers in the past expose this, in my opinion. Honestly, you sound like a nerd in highschool who has grown some brains and is waiting for a time to show all up all those people who got the attention you didn't. I'm having a hard time coming up with names, but I this is a concept portrayed in countless movies, which someone you brought to mind with this last post.  Maybe I've lost where I was going with this, but sometimes I do think you need to just take a breath and shut up. Plenty of insults and idiotic opinions are thrown around on this site, many of which are ignored simply because if it is really that ludicrous, it doesn't warrant a response. I do feel that you are a little unfairly responded to sometimes, but sometimes like now, I really just think you'd be doing yourself a favor to just let it go. BTW, I was a nerd in school too. My advice is simply, sometimes it's better to shut up when you get too emotionally involved in what you're trying to say. You often say things you'll wish you hadn't.  (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Friday, November 14, 2008, 17:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanx for the comment, chaos*.  But your idea of a crush being an attraction doesn't really make that much sense either, because you have not defined attraction.  Humans have an attraction to many things, some physical, some mental, and then I would think emotional should be added also.  For example: I am mentally attracted to Sarah Palin, warm macaroni and cheese from the hot case in the deli, my car, my church, Ben Stein, Madly, Falcon, Rainy, cheeks, Fox News Channel, among other things.  I am not in love with any of these things, persons, or ideas.  There are attractions, and some of them are stronger than others, but I am not in love with any of them.  As far as physical attractions are concerned: I am physically attracted to Drew Barrymore, Jodie Foster, Kirsten Dunst, Adam Sandler, Jessica, Sarah Palin (again), Kirsten Powers, Amanda Carpenter, Margaret Hoover, the Colloseum, the Statue of Liberty, Michelle Malkin, Tony, Steven Colbert, Brittany, the city of Charleston in South Carolina, and at times the Endeavour space shuttle.  So this cannot be a proper definition of a crush unless you define how strong the attraction is. Since I have recently been chastised for being longwinded, I will stop this post here.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Saturday, November 15, 2008, 15:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Why, why, why do I ever come to this site? Samuel has just listed me with mac cheese, fox news and Sarah Palin!!! If anyone else had said this, I'd be killing myself. HOW, HOW do I give such a wrong impression of myself? AAaaaagh! Kill me someone...(reply to this comment)

From Falcon Sunday, November 16, 2008, 14:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Er, I'm with you there. Ten paces and shoot each other?(reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Sunday, November 16, 2008, 04:16 (Agree/Disagree?) You come here, becuase, where else would you find people who admit to a mental attraction to Mac and Cheese? Imagine the effect Steak and Salad would have, Denny's Menu's would be like porn!    (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, November 16, 2008, 05:31 (Agree/Disagree?) I've got to hand it to you, frag.  That was funny.  Now look at this. http://www.onthemedia.org/yore/transcripts/transcripts_100705_porn.html(reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Sunday, November 16, 2008, 04:16 (Agree/Disagree?) You come here, becuase, where else would you find people who admit to a mental attraction to Mac and Cheese? Imagine the effect Steak and Salad would have, Denny's Menu's would be like porn!    (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, November 15, 2008, 18:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, Rainy, you are were the main philosopher on this site for a period of time.  I respect you for that.  I like the way you think logically without getting too emotionally involved.  And that was meant as a compliment.  I specifically made sure that there was a wide variety of things, people, and ideas mentioned to make my point that chaos* definition of a crush does not make sense unless the attraction is defined.  (reply to this comment)

From heir c Saturday, November 15, 2008, 20:07 (Agree/Disagree?) you saying the the word "emotionally"  makes no sense unless you define it samuel....(reply to this comment)

From chaos* Saturday, November 15, 2008, 19:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Attraction means it arouses the desire to be intimiate with or perhaps mate with. On a physical level it generally involves physically beautiful qualities in the eye of the beholder. Meaning your mind recognizes these qualities, and interprets them as being the qualities of a potential mate. When this translates into a desire to be intimate with the object, it is often called "a crush". Mentally generally contends that you have not indeed seen the object, but a mental picture has been formed from the bits and pieces the mind has otherwise collected. When the mind forms a desire to be intimate based on the mental picture it has created, this is what I was referring to as "mental attraction". While many people have these sensations very often. It's not often that this sensation leaves a lasting impression (let's just say months). I may glance at 10 woman in a day that I find physically attractive, but most will be forgotten in a few hours or a day. When the attraction is strong enough that I am unable to forget and her, or the picture of her continues to induce a reaction in me, then I would say that I had "a crush" on her. Are you for real Sammy? Or is this just all more misdirection? I'm really having a hard time understanding how you can interpret all those inanimate objects as "attraction". Like I said below, there is a big difference between "attracted by" and "attracted to". Either you are mistaking the two, or you really have a glaring lack of understanding about the whole birds and bees issue.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, November 16, 2008, 05:04 (Agree/Disagree?) No, I was waiting and waiting for you to explain your suggestion that a mental or physical attraction of any kind constitutes a crush.  Now that that is settled, I can very safely say that I never had a crush on Madly, Rainy, or any other person on this site.  I did see good qualities in them, some that I may have wanted in myself, but you now admit that that is not the same as wanting to be intimate with someone and mate with them.  What, you glance at 10 women a day?  For me it's probably more like 20, and most would be forgotten within a few minutes.  (reply to this comment)

From chaos* Sunday, November 16, 2008, 06:20 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm really trying not to disrespect you Sam, but you really helping me out here. I think you are probably the only person who didn't understand what I meant in my original post. Nitpicking at the exact definitions just re-enforces your side-stepping of the issue. Please stop kidding yourself. It's obvious to everyone except yourself and I'm sensing it's because you simply don't want to admit it to yourself. I feel stupid borrowing a cult quote but, "There are none so blind as those who choose to be." Where did I say that it's not the same as wanting to be intimate with and/or mate with someone? What does it matter how many women I glance at? I really don't get your point. Your overemphasis on pushing irrelevant details and trying to sound experienced in others, only further proves the point that you really don't know your subject matter. Please, "mate" with a few people first, then talk to me again.(reply to this comment)

From ange Saturday, November 15, 2008, 02:31 (Agree/Disagree?) I had to give you a thumbs up for being just so so so funny. The image of someone with an on off physical attraction to a space shuttle really made my day. I guess I should be the one who explains to you that 'physically attracted' means 'turned on'. There are lots of other words to describe liking something or thinking that someone is amazing. Read more, Sam. Talk less. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, November 15, 2008, 06:30 (Agree/Disagree?) "I guess I should be the one who explains to you that 'physically attracted' means 'turned on'. " It sounds like you are mistaking physical attraction for sexual attraction.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, November 15, 2008, 05:49 (Agree/Disagree?) again, that may be your definition.  But when you consider all the things that a person can be physically attracted to, it doesn't make much sense.(reply to this comment)

From chaos* Saturday, November 15, 2008, 07:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Sammy boy, I think you are mistaking "attracted to" with "attracted by".  (reply to this comment)

From heir c Friday, November 14, 2008, 23:48 (Agree/Disagree?) thats great samuel! have a very special day, for a very special little man!!!(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, November 15, 2008, 18:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I had no idea it was your birthday, little man.(reply to this comment)

From heir c Saturday, November 15, 2008, 19:44 (Agree/Disagree?) i know you are, but what am i? what am i???!!!!(reply to this comment)

From madly Friday, November 14, 2008, 22:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow... with that, I rest my case. Some people make it too easy.(reply to this comment)

From shikaka Friday, November 14, 2008, 19:38 (Agree/Disagree?) I will beat you unconscious with a pink 12 inch dildo for being fucking retarded. (reply to this comment)

From Shikaka's girlfriend Friday, November 14, 2008, 20:48 (Agree/Disagree?) What?!  What do you need a pink 12 inch dildo for?  You're so bad in bed so I KNOW you're not using it on me, so what is going on here?  Are you sneaking around behind my back again?  I should have listened to all my girlfriends!  You're a real jerk off, in every sense of the term.(reply to this comment)

From chaos* Thursday, November 13, 2008, 01:18 (Agree/Disagree?) To be fair, you make some points, but it's all too....I don't know, dramatic? to be taken seriously. Also, as a former virgin myself, I know that they have a habitual tendency to continually provide proof of their virginity. As if it has to be yelled from the rooftops loud and clear. 90%? I think you should ask around before throwing out numbers like that.(reply to this comment)

From heir c Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 22:21 (Agree/Disagree?) samuel.....u have a way of going on and on and on, but not saying anything.......you are a very unattractive unhappy man who hides behind politicaly correct ramblings............any great thing ive heard on my lovely site has been "quickly greeted" by thumbs down signs samuel........you dont show any raw emotions.....you are fake...no matter how u dress up your words it comes thru.....your contributions are a big factor in keeping the talk here mediocre....not all the time is "explain to retard" time samuel.....(reply to this comment)

From DeeJay Thursday, November 13, 2008, 17:21 (Agree/Disagree?) I guess it's too bad then that you're such an unattractive shite yourself. You used to be a little ponytailed overcompensator, now you're just a uniformed one. Can I suggest that maybe you and your bru scorpion start your own site, and you two can make yourselves feel better about your small members there.  (reply to this comment)

From heir c Thursday, November 13, 2008, 20:56 (Agree/Disagree?) shhhhh my child....u shall have no attention from him....amen? amen!!!! (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Friday, November 14, 2008, 03:54 (Agree/Disagree?) what would be nice...is if we had no attention from you....weren't you banned from this site...several years ago? It is nice to know that you have finally figured out how to use some punctuation in your sentences, however your overuse of the exclamation point shows some hang ups from The Family.  One is plenty, three's a crowd.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Friday, November 14, 2008, 03:58 (Agree/Disagree?) And I will be very pissed off at you if I find you paid a soldier $150 to borrow their uniform for that picture.(reply to this comment)

From heir c Friday, November 14, 2008, 07:17 (Agree/Disagree?) im a marine fat boy....not a gay ass soldier...(reply to this comment)

From placebo Friday, November 14, 2008, 13:36 (Agree/Disagree?) this may be off-topic and borderline racist but am I the only one who thinks heir c looks like a young Pol Pot?(reply to this comment)

From rainy Saturday, November 15, 2008, 15:51 (Agree/Disagree?) with something slightly vampiric (is that a word?) about the mouth... (Just got broadband back on yesterday, P! I've missed you!)(reply to this comment)

From heir c Sunday, November 16, 2008, 11:10 (Agree/Disagree?) you had better watch how you speak of "pol pot" the vampire.........(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, November 16, 2008, 11:41 (Agree/Disagree?) You had better watch how you speak of gays and soldiers.(reply to this comment)

From heir c Sunday, November 16, 2008, 15:56 (Agree/Disagree?) the marines can say whatever they want about soldiers......for they are our retarded little brother....kinda like you....but not so fat....i have no hate for gays though....let them float around the area so full of happy thoughts and shit....(reply to this comment)

From heir c Friday, November 14, 2008, 15:35 (Agree/Disagree?) oh really placebo......(reply to this comment)

From Ha! Friday, November 14, 2008, 14:42 (Agree/Disagree?) yes, a bit racist.(reply to this comment)

From Seriously Thursday, November 13, 2008, 11:17 (Agree/Disagree?) You people need to start thinking about finding something better to do then pick on Sam. He has every right to be here and people like Scarface and Madly and yourself continually degrade him. It's starting to make me feel sick...and I'm sick and tired of it. If it continues I'm going to request you all get kicked out of the sight and I'm sure there are people who would agree with me. Leave the poor guy alone-- it's not that hard. (reply to this comment)

From madly Thursday, November 13, 2008, 20:55 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL!(reply to this comment)

From heir c Thursday, November 13, 2008, 20:58 (Agree/Disagree?) hi madly(reply to this comment)

From chaos* Thursday, November 13, 2008, 16:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Not that I don't agree, but isn't it a bit contradictory to be defending Sam and attacking madly and scarface ( Neither of who, capitalize their own names. This in itself is either patronizing or reflects your own intimidation - thus the anonymity.). Seeing as ultimately they both have as much right to be here as Sam, why do you not defend them as well. Because you find them annoying but not Sam? Not that I don't, but in all fairness, I'm sure there are also people who would disagree. If you're going to defend free speech, it can't be selective free speech.(reply to this comment)

From I have my reasons Thursday, November 13, 2008, 18:35 (Agree/Disagree?) as do you-- I'm sure, chaos.(reply to this comment)

From chaos* Thursday, November 13, 2008, 22:02 (Agree/Disagree?) At least I state my reasons. Pray tell, do grace us with your reasons which are higher than mine. Anonymity, then unstated reasons. Please, what's next? If this is in defense of Sam, I have no problems with that, I was simply pointing out why your method was flawed. However I'm beginning to sense that this has more to do with my defense of scarface and madly, which co-incidentally if you can read properly, you should be able to deduce that I didn't. My point was simply this. - As annoying as scarface is, I can tell him to shut up, but I can't ban him. As condescending as madly is, I can also tell her to shut up, but I can't ban her either. We are all entitled to express our opinions. To defend one poster's rights at the cost of the rights of others, is hypocritical at best.(reply to this comment)

From We are all entitled to express Thursday, November 13, 2008, 23:26 (Agree/Disagree?) or not express our opinion and, we are compelled to behave as civilized human beings.(reply to this comment)

From DeeJay Saturday, November 15, 2008, 01:32 (Agree/Disagree?) You mean we are all compelled to act to your acceptance and liking? I take from your above comment that your use of the word "civilized" in this instance means the ability to interact and co-exist with others peacefully. Let me ask you this then. Following this definition, if one person has a problem with everybody and everybody has a problem with this one person, who should then be accused of being uncivilized?(reply to this comment)

From No. I don't mean that Saturday, November 15, 2008, 13:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I mean if you really can't stand someone here, simply ignore them. No need to verbally attack them. (reply to this comment)

From DeeJay Saturday, November 15, 2008, 19:32 (Agree/Disagree?) While there are days that I agree with you, today I just don't. This is precisely the reason that so many interesting and educated people have left this site. Too many stupid people throwing around stupid opinions, till there's nothing decent to comment on anymore, or what little there is has to be gleaned out of a sea of stupidity. I reason that stupidity reigns when smart people do nothing. Once in awhile people have to stand up and say that enough is enough. This site is very enlightening and entertaining sometimes, and once in awhile I'm almost proud to be amongst these my peers. Sometimes, like the last few weeks though, I feel embarrassed. Why should fifty people be silent to protect the feelings of one or two obnoxious posters who clog this site with shit? Maybe the next poll should include a vote between the two or three of them, and the losers get banned? I think it's a pretty easy call as to who they would be. - This is my point.(reply to this comment)

From I don't entirely disagree with you Sunday, November 16, 2008, 01:00 (Agree/Disagree?) I just don't like seeing people being bullied here (even if they are annoying.) None of us need that! I guess we will have to agree to disagree today.(reply to this comment)

From Fish Sunday, November 16, 2008, 18:20 (Agree/Disagree?) What nonsense. No ones taking a crowbar to anyone, their just having a low intelligence flame out. "Bullied" indeed. You are stupid. Shit, now I'm "bullying" you!(reply to this comment)

From ohhhh Monday, November 17, 2008, 06:31 (Agree/Disagree?) you wish fish.(reply to this comment)

From heir c Saturday, November 15, 2008, 20:02 (Agree/Disagree?) i think deejay is oddie...(reply to this comment)

From chaos* Sunday, November 16, 2008, 06:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Speaking of Oddie. WE MISS YOU MAN. Hope you are finding a way to cope and doing as well as you can. Come back to us when you're ready. with respect and sympathies.....(reply to this comment)

From uhh Sunday, November 16, 2008, 00:54 (Agree/Disagree?) No. He is not. (reply to this comment)

From heir c Saturday, November 15, 2008, 20:01 (Agree/Disagree?) i think deejay is oddie...(reply to this comment)

From neez Thursday, November 13, 2008, 13:38 (Agree/Disagree?) It's actually making you feel physically ill? I'd say thats more a problem on your end.(reply to this comment)

From maybe so, nevertheless Thursday, November 13, 2008, 13:44 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm tired of all the bullying each other. It's such a wast of time! (reply to this comment)

From neez Friday, November 14, 2008, 00:23 (Agree/Disagree?) I will agree that engaging Samuel always ends up being a complete waste of time.(reply to this comment)

From neez Friday, November 14, 2008, 00:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Look what happened to this thread for instance.(reply to this comment)

From heir c Friday, November 14, 2008, 01:22 (Agree/Disagree?) hello neez.....i met her in the stone age with a jogger....(reply to this comment)

From neez Monday, November 17, 2008, 04:46 (Agree/Disagree?) I will give you my secret. With it you will be able to last in the music industry for at least three years. It's an online random lyric generator. http://www.outofservice.com/country/ The 'lyrics' should look strangely familiar to you.(reply to this comment)

From heir c Monday, November 17, 2008, 08:26 (Agree/Disagree?) im disappointed.....to heck with you neez!! to heck with all of you!!!!(reply to this comment)

From rze Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 23:18 (Agree/Disagree?) So, what you're saying is he killed your dog and torched your house. That sucks. Thanks for clarifying.(reply to this comment)

From heir c Thursday, November 13, 2008, 09:55 (Agree/Disagree?) i miss prince c(reply to this comment)

From exfamily Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 01:52 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL OMG I can't believe he actually posted that! Cringeworthy!(reply to this comment)

From madly Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 20:27 (Agree/Disagree?) How sweet. What was that??... Your own little rendition of the “Tortoise and the Hare”? Sam, at the rate you are going, me and half the people on this planet will be dead before you even obtain the ability to form an original thought. You copy everything and everyone. “That is all”?? You are kidding me, right? We all know who you got that from.   Please get a life and stop trying to be cool… it is never going to happen!! The sooner you realize this, the sooner you can move on to something you may be able to achieve. You annoy me, Sam, and I wouldn’t be helping you by pretending that you don’t. Not that I am in any way trying to help you, but please stop acting like the victim. People treat you a certain way, because you ask for it by being the absolute idiot that you so often are.   Anyway, I do not have the time to go back and forth with you, so take it for what you will and let’s leave it be. I don’t care to discuss it further.  (reply to this comment)

From Ha! Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 12:39 (Agree/Disagree?) She who posts and runs away, lives to post another day.(reply to this comment)

From shikaka Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 18:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Jesus Christ you're stupid. A "pocket pussy" is a small, plastic and latex device that mimics the female genitalia. Lonely men such as yourself use them to masturbate with. What in satan's name are you rambling about? Its like you're arguing with the voices in your head. (reply to this comment)

From Austin Powers Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 18:52 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h1AzpB_soI(reply to this comment)

From Master Bater Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 18:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Hands do a much better job.(reply to this comment)

From Hee hee Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 16:16 (Agree/Disagree?) This site used to once be cool.  At least there were some cooler fights with funner and more eccentric people and general trash talking going on etc. ... Now it's turned into the Sammy vs. Scarface extravaganza.  Or the Sammy vs everyone and Sacrface vs everyone extravaganza.  What fun. I guess people get the content they deserve. (reply to this comment)

From rze Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 21:36 (Agree/Disagree?) AHHHHHH, EVERYONE GET OVER YOURSELVES! SOB! Alright, I confess; I totally appreciate this in a well-I-feel-shitty-but-at-least-I'm-not-here-posting-that sort of way. It's like the new wave of 3 Stooges routines. Now everyone just cheer the fuck up!(reply to this comment)

From neez Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 00:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Finland gave the "Little House on the Prairie" DVD an R rating. http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE4A572J20081106(reply to this comment)

From don't worry sam Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 08:26 (Agree/Disagree?) i think someones gin and juice went missing (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 04:53 (Agree/Disagree?) When Heaven's Not Far Away- by Cold If you slip away, in darkness do you fall And if God created love, did he make it for everyone? Is there solitude and hope, can you still dream? If the devil makes you cry do you change? In my own shame, when heavens not far away In my own shame, when heavens not far away Do the little things in life stay with your soul? Does an angel hold a sign, with directions for everyone? Is there someone there to have and hold for me? If the stars refuse to shine do you change? In my own shame, when heavens not far away In my own shame, when heavens not far away Not far away, from, me Not far away, from, me Not far away My own shame, when heavens not far away In my own shame, when heavens not far away When heavens not far away When heavens not far away  (reply to this comment)

From ange Monday, November 10, 2008, 07:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Does that make you feel good about yourself, madly? (reply to this comment)

From madly Monday, November 10, 2008, 11:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually, yes... thank you for asking!(reply to this comment)

From ange Friday, November 14, 2008, 07:18 (Agree/Disagree?) There I was assuming that you were just having a bad day… I see that this conversation has moved on in an above thread since I last had a chance to post. I have to say that Samuel definitely does not help his case nearly as much as he’d like to think and, yes, he is annoying and long-winded about it. However, I did think that this site was supposed to be a place where people who are finding it hard to adjust to being in society could find some support. Samuel has obviously got some issues, as a lot of people have noticed, and I feel kind of sorry for him. That was my point. (reply to this comment)

from jolifam77 Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 21:00 (Agree/Disagree?) I think it's kind of sad. The amount of cynicism you display, as well as many others who commented. In a way it's comforting to me though, because I'm cynical as well, about marriage and stuff, and at least there seem to be a lot of others out there who've given up on finding true, lasting love...so I'm not the only one. Although to this day, I'm still "in love" with the two females who turned me down years ago. I'll probably continue to be "in love" with both of them till I die. It was that high that got killed with a quick rejection and left me hanging and I'm still hanging. So I guess "love" from my experience, love that never dies, is the kind that is never fulifilled, if you will, sort of like a hunger. That's why they say if you want love to last you have to give your significant other "the gift of missing you." This concept reminds of how it's known that wives, for example out in the country, whose husbands have been gone quite awhile will cling to their husband's sweaty unwashed trousers, anything to get closer to the man they love. And I'm sure on the road the man thinks of his wife as well. I do believe in that kind of love, but I think it takes a simpler, more trusting mindset. I haven't gotten into the fast paced sex-in-the-city turnover relationship lifestyle, because it's exhausting, both physically and emotionally, and for another thing, I think it's pathetic, i.e. entering into relationships with the knowledge and belief that you are just going to get bored with her soon enough. Maybe that works for some people. Not for me. Personally speaking, I missed the boat early in life due to many factors, TF being one of them. I'm not getting back in the chase, at least not right now, because like I said it's too exhausting. I'm 30 years old, the best days are over. Love seems like a missed opportunity, as it is best experienced by the young with more energy to enjoy it. I'm salvaging my life by focusing on career achievements and perhaps eventually some scientific breakthoughs to write my name in history. At last the dream never dies. (reply to this comment)

From madly Saturday, March 17, 2007, 12:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Jolifam, I guess one could look at it as sad, my cynicism, and the way I don’t trust in the idea of marriage completely. It is a little sad, but it is also what I have found to be true. What I think is sad is how you believe, at 30, that “your best days are over”. That, my friend, IS sad. Does that mean I only have 4 good years left and then I might as well buy a cat and start knitting? You are young and although a good amount of life was stolen from us, we have plenty left to take advantage of. Your goals seem admirable and I am sure you will achieve them, but you are not too old for love or anything for that matter. I am sure you have the energy left to find love, if you desire to do so. Don’t kill yourself off at 30, dangling on foot in the grave. Imagine how many truly elderly people look at you and wish they had the life left within you. (reply to this comment)

from vacuous Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 10:02 (Agree/Disagree?) The male testes of a chimpanzee are proportionately 16 times larger than that of a gorilla. This is because the males procreate with as many females as possible to spread their seed. A gorilla, on the other hand, is committed to protecting his territory and a harem of females, subsequently gorillas spend their time protecting their territory from other males and providing for their women and children...so they have smaller testes. species that copulate routinely need bigger testes; and promiscuous species in which several males mate frequently with one female need especially large testes Based on this fascinating biological determinator of which primates are prone to monogamous or polygynous relationships the human ratio falls somewhere inbetween. Females mate with more than one male but not as often as a chimp female...as for the male their testes are small enough to be territorial and prone to jealousy and large enough to feel the urges of infidelity. The pragmatic girl who wants to discover how predisposed her boyfriend is to 'cheating on her' or discover how routinely his ancestors scored merely must consider and make proportion-based calculations on the hereditary size of his reproductive glands. If you are looking for a mate with less of a genetic predisposition towards a monogamous marriage then bear the above in mind, madly. (reply to this comment)

From vacuous Wednesday, March 14, 2007, 10:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Forgive me...the last sentence was an oxymoron..."if you are looking for a mate with less predisposition to marriage"..... Based on the teste theory, with view towards the family's doctrine of the "law of love", and assuming that the family lasts for another millenium...any predictions on teste size?(reply to this comment)

From madly Wednesday, March 14, 2007, 13:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Hmmmm… I believe you missed the entire point of my article, vacuous. You see… I am not looking for a mate, marriage, or a faithful boyfriend, as I am the one that longs for change. Maybe I was just born with big balls.(reply to this comment)

from -/-/-\-\- Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 18:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Whatever, I'll marry for love. (reply to this comment)

from madly Monday, January 15, 2007 - 09:55 (Agree/Disagree?) I thought this was very funnny: A police officer pulls over a speeding car. The officer says I clocked you at 80 miles per hour, sir." The driver says, "Gee, officer I had it on cruise control at 60, perhaps your radar gun needs calibrating." Not looking up from her knitting the wife says: "Now don't be silly dear, you know that this car doesn't have cruise control." As the officer writes out the ticket, the driver looks over at his wife and growls, "Can't you please keep your mouth shut for once?" The wife smiles demurely and says, "You should be thankful your radar detector went off when it did" As the officer makes out the second ticket for the illegal radar detector unit, the man glowers at his wife and says through clenched teeth, "Darn it, woman, can't you keep your mouth shut?" The officer frowns and says, "And I notice that you're not wearing your seat belt, sir. That's an automatic $75 fine." The driver says, "Yeah, well, you see officer, I had it on, but took it off when you pulled me over so that I could get my license out of my back pocket." The wife says, "Now, dear, you know very well that you didn't have your seat belt on. You never wear your seat belt when you're driving." And as the police officer is writing out the third ticket the driver turns to his wife and barks, "WHY DON'T YOU PLEASE SHUT UP" The officer looks over at the woman and asks, "Does your husband always talk to you this way, Ma'am?" (I love this part...) "Only when he's been drinking" (reply to this comment)

from Oddman Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 16:53 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm going to regret this. Disclaimer. I'm single, never been married. Been proposed to on numerous occasions, engaged twice. I grew up in a fucked up environment to put it mildly. The opinions expressed are current and up to date as of 15-Jan-2007, and very much subject to change without prior notice. I'm not trying to change anyones opinion. Take this for what it is, coming from who it's coming from. -<-<@ First and foremost, Savage, I truly madly deeply curse the ground you walk on, for writing something so long, then asking me to comment. I thank my exes I can remember, YT, HB, PS, RB, LDJ, Flo, NB, LI, KI, and all my flings, toys, mistresses, owners, slaves, all my love-hate relationships, for the experiences which formed my views on this issue. Is marriage even neccessary? Forget the emotions. Forget the wedding dresses, rental tux, noisy tins, rice, ring, bell, cake, vows, kiss, bouquet, the something blue, the wedding night fuck, the honeymoon. Forget the in-laws, the relatives, the teary father of the bride. Marriage (Noun) (Synonyms: Matrimony) The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments. So what does marriage legally change? As the legal spouse, you get a right to inheritance. In most countries, marriage means your partner can't cheat on you, you can't cheat on your partner. You have an obligation to fulfil the duties of a spouse, which in some countries includes sex. You have rights to your joint assets. In some countries you get tax benefits. Make everything a civil union between two consenting adults of legal age, any gender. Get rid of all the hype and bells and whistles and romance and harlequin paperback bull. Keep it strictly a social institution. Why not just get rid of marriage.? The need to marry is not a natural thing, but a cultural thing. The only natural genetic predisposition is breed, leave seed, produce offspring, continue your bloodline. Infatuation, horniness, fornication, adultery, sex, intercourse, all just manifestations of this basic human instinct. I can see why the concept of a union between two persons is not all that a bad idea. A secure family where two split responsibilities and raise their offspring. It's a nice idea. It's just more and more unrealistic. If the main function of a union is to better raise a child, then all marriages should terminate once a child reaches 18. Anyway, I can rant forever. Especially when I'm drunk at 9:00 AM. I think marriage for love is a stupid idea. What we commonly refer to as love is infatuation. That wonderful feeling that rips through you like a tornado, causing myriads of problems for everyone. Amour, Kama, Mahal, Caritas, Love. And many people marry based on this emotion alone. Based on a few electric signals zapping through your brain. It's destined to die. Before we invented morals and traditions, lust was enough for two persons to jump under the covers and make a baby. We'd look at a member of the opposite sex, and think, okay, he looks good, has good genes, looks strong enough to protect me, he knows how to get food. Good, time to fuck. She looks good, wide hips, easy birth, big boobs, can feed the baby. Good, time to fuck. I think infatuation is a natural mechanism to protect the species against extinction, under the threat of moral constricts. Because of morals that say "don't fuck" we need an excuse. Voila, I give you infatuation. If we didn't have infatuation, the human race would probably be stronger, because the fit would survive. People would choose who to fuck based on genes, and those with lesser genes would be left out. That old natural animalistic train of thought, is actually what's best for us now still. Marriages should be based on that old analytical train of thought. Will this person give me a good baby? Will a union with this person better help me achieve my goals of survival, and survival of my offspring? That should be the basis of marriage. True love. I believe true love can't happen until you've known a person for a very long time. Three months is way too short. Three years is still too short. I think one should get married for practical reasons, and if along the way you fall in love with each other, great. If not, you didn't expect to anyway. I know it sounds cold and pragmatic, but since when is that a bad thing. The following is a cut and paste of something an African man in his 60's gave me when I was contemplating marriage based on what I now realize was nothing more than infatuation. *Infatuation is instant desire. It is one set of glands calling to another. *Love is a friendship that has caught fire. It takes root and grows, one day at a time. *Infatuation is marked by a feeling of insecurity. You are excited and eager, but not genuinely happy. There are nagging doubts, unanswered questions, little bits and places about your beloved that you would just as soon not examine too closely. It might spoil the dream. *Love is quiet understanding and the mature acceptance of imperfection. It is real. It gives you strength and grows beyond you to bolster your beloved. You are warmed by his/her presence even when he/she is away. Miles do not separate you. You want him/her nearer, but near or far, you know he/she is yours and you can wait. *Infatuation says, "We must get married right away! I can't risk losing you!" *Love says, "Be patient. Do not panic. Plan your future with confidence." *Infatuation has an element of sexual excitement. If you are honest, you can admit it is difficult to be in one another's company unless you are sure it will end-- in intimacy. *Love is the maturation of friendship. You must be friends before you can be lovers. *Infatuation lacks confidence. When he/she is away you wonder if he/she is cheating. Sometimes you check. *Love means trust. You are calm, secure and unthreatened. Your beloved feels that also and makes them even more trustworthy. *Infatuation might lead you to do things you will regret later, but love never will. *Love is an upper. It makes you look up. It makes you think up. It makes you a better person. That describes my views on love and infatuation fairly well. If I do eventually one day get married, there are a number of issues I'd attend to. I'll sign a divorce form when I sign the marriage form. We'll sign it, one copy each, no dates, and keep it in a safe. We can divorce whenever either one party wishes to. We'll decide when we want to have a baby, how many we want, and how we would raise them. We'll keep separate accounts, and agree that we split only the joint account. I'd want it to be a completely practical, realistic, pragmatic union. That's not to say that I don't enjoy romance and infatuation riddled relationships. That's enjoyable. It's just counter-productive when you are planning a future and a family. I think as long as you both respect that the marriage has its own goals, you can both go out and enjoy your little flings and romances and infatuations. If you are a good pair and supplement each others weak areas, augment each others areas of strength, you'd find the relationship working just fine, totally absent of love or infatuation. You'll form a bond much like you do with a good colleague or ally. And one day you might realize that you've loved your partner all along. (reply to this comment)

From JustinM Friday, February 09, 2007, 18:07 (Agree/Disagree?) your right on(reply to this comment)

From casada Monday, January 15, 2007, 02:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, your idea about the divorce form is basically what everyone is doing nowadays. Although marriage is still largely a cultural thing, as you so well put it, it is valued less than say, 50 years ago. People walk into marriages thinking, ah, I will give it a shot and if not, we just get a divorce. Although I know that some marriages might turn sour after a while, and then divorce is your only option, how much of a commitment is it to your other half if divorce is always an easy option? Not that I frown on divorces, my parents hated each other guts and as a kid, I wished and prayed they would divorce. But if you're gonna take that step of marriage, why not go all the way without the prepared divorce form in the back pocket? Why get married at all then if you don't think you can make it work till you're old, grey and pruny?(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Monday, January 15, 2007, 07:36 (Agree/Disagree?) "how much of a commitment is it to your other half if divorce is always an easy option?" I think one reason why marriages fall apart, is because either side simply didn't see it coming. Because they never figured divorce would be an option. Marriage is sacred. Til death do us part. Holy matrimony. Holy bullshit. I think another idea would be to make marriage a renewable three year contract. If you don't want to get married again when your civil union contract expires, then you automatically get a divorce. A divorce settlement officer marches in and evaluates your joint assets, and splits it according to your marriage contract. No court cases, no nothing. You have to get re-married every three years if you still want the marriage. (reply to this comment)

From Casada Monday, January 15, 2007, 07:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Hmm, that three year contract thing sounds good, instead of actually re-marrying, you could also just extend the contract for another 3 years. About the divorce, I said "easy option", not option. Every marriage should have the divorce option, no doubt about it, but if u walk into a marriage with divorce on your mind, maybe rethink the marriage. Anyhow, tired of talking bout divorce, what I meant to say is that I think people should just get married for better reasons than "she got pregnant" or "I am just so in love". (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Monday, January 15, 2007, 08:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, my point is that one can better deal with a threat if they recognize it's presence. If divorce is a clear and present danger, which threatens to disrupt an otherwise happy walk to death, then you can take steps to avert D-day. The signed divorce form is like a nuclear arsenal. Knowing it's there changes the nature of your power struggles and negotiations. (reply to this comment)

From conan Monday, January 15, 2007, 08:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh it's always there though. Whether it was drafted before the wedding or just filed for after things fell apart, divorce is ALWAYS an option thanks to King Henry VIII telling the pope to go fuck himself. I know all to many instances where people have gotten married with the idea that they could always get a divorce if things didn't work out. It's once one files for the divorce that all hell breaks loose and people go after eachother with low blows, dirty tricks, entrapment, etc.(reply to this comment)

From conan Monday, January 15, 2007, 08:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Or: "so fuck it..."(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Monday, January 15, 2007, 08:11 (Agree/Disagree?) You know how some countries require a "separation period" before a divorce is granted? A "live in engagement period" before marriage might help. A fence at the edge of a cliff.(reply to this comment)

From i think you're an idiot Monday, January 15, 2007, 04:48 (Agree/Disagree?) casada, If you're admitting that marriage is largely a social thing, why do you insist on the sham that is marriage actually lasting 'till death'. If divorce is an option down the road, pre-nups and ideas like oddie's will make the process for ending the marriage more amicable, and less pain all around for involved parties. Don't you agree? You wanted your parents to divorce but they probably stayed together just for you. How's that for 'love and fidelity'? Sounds like an illusion to me! May as well be prepared for things to go bad and if they don't, well that's just grand! But in the very likely scenario that one party or other will want to end the relationship, may as well be done with as little mess as possible, which pre-nups help. Plus, they discourage marriage for the 'wrong' reasons. With the illusion that marriage is about love and not money, the pre-nup ensures that when the love runs out, money doesn't become the focal point of a pre-concieved notion. That isn't futile in my book, it's called preventative foresight. But whatever! It's not like it really matters to me what you think of marriage, divorce, and pre-nups. It'll be your mess to sort out when your 'happy' marriage ends, or not.(reply to this comment)

From casada Monday, January 15, 2007, 05:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Pre-nups are a great idea, so are seperate bank accounts (a must for me) and like I said, I don't think there is anything wrong with divorce. I think there is also a difference between marriage as in the ceremony, white dress and all (largely social event) and the marriage where 2 people commit to each other for life sans ceremony and dress-up party. I don't think ending a marriage will ever be easy, especially not when there are kids involved, and I definitely do not believe in "sticking it out for the kids". I guess I just see too many people getting divorced after 1 or 2 years of marriage, with at least one kid in the mess, complaining to me about how they should never have gotten married. Honestly, I think divorce should be your last resort, and not the first choice when the going gets rough. But yeah, it's their mess to sort out. Call me an idiot if you will, but I have been happily married for almost 11 years, so I guess that makes me a happy idiot. (reply to this comment)

From i still think you're an idiot Monday, January 15, 2007, 06:26 (Agree/Disagree?) If you don't see anything wrong with divorce, why are you so opposed to marriages ending that way? How many people get married because they are genuinely happy and have these great life plans, and then something changes their mind and they find that their dream is fucking nightmare?! Even if it is after 1 or 2 years or less. It doesn't take long for the luster of infatuatin to fade, and while it's hot, it's easy to say 'let's get married' without really considering the effort required to make said marriage work. How many ceremonies 'sans dress up' do you know of that last longer than the traditional big weddings complete with white dress, organ, rice, etc.? Is this your idea of legitimacy? A civil ceremony? Please, a marriage's success has little or nothing to do with the ceremony binding the union. It has to do with the individuals getting hitched. I'm happy that you've been happily married for 11 years, but statiscally, you are the exception to the 'norm' and your marriage goes against most current trends. Good luck with your marriage, but don't compare 'marriage' to your happy little union.(reply to this comment)

From casada Monday, January 15, 2007, 07:03 (Agree/Disagree?) ??? I don't remember saying my idea of a legitimate wedding is a ceremony...and I definitely don't think there is a connection between the ceremony and the ending of a marriage. Also not sure what u mean by "happy little union" or why I can't compare my marriage with others. (Isn't marriage a happy little union?) I perfectly agree with the first part of what u just wrote, and like I said before, people confuse infatuation with "true love" and then watch it die with nothing left in their hands, except a wedding ring, or in the worse scenario, a screaming baby and a mortgage. That is exactly the reason why I think marriage should be thought through thoroughly, and not just enter it carelessly since "we can always get a divorce". (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Monday, January 15, 2007, 07:51 (Agree/Disagree?) I didn't say one should get married without thought, since "we can always get a divorce". I'm saying the commitment should be to your goals. A pragmatic commitment to achieve what you want to achieve. No emotional commitment to your partner. Same as any other partnership. Marriage is in essence, a exclusive trade agreement. If you've done such business before, you know that partners don't always perform to par. You have service level agreements, breach clauses, and performance reviews. You have no commitment to each other, you have a commitment to your contract, because adhering to your contract furthers your own goals. You get a roommate, because it's mutually beneficial. You pick up a hitchhiker because it's mutually beneficial. You augment each other. And that's what marriage should be. It should be beneficial, to both parties. And you don't want to fight over it, if and when it does break and fall apart. Carelessness with emotions is permissable. Carelessness with planning your future is not. I'm not advocating careless marriage.(reply to this comment)

From TT Monday, January 15, 2007, 09:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow, I love the comparison of marriage to picking up a hitchhiker. That's a new one. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Monday, January 15, 2007, 09:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Both were examples of situations where we choose to spend time with some person for a reason other than infatuation. We have a different goal. We want some extra money to pay off the mortgage. We want someone to keep us company on a long drive. And we're careful when we pick up such people. If we can make an informed decision when deciding to spend two hours with one stranger, why can't we go through the same thought process before vowing "till divorce do us part".(reply to this comment)

From conan Monday, January 15, 2007, 08:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Aren't most marriages careless? I'm not saying the people don't love each other and make it work, but who genuinely takes in all angles and thinks about marriage as a contract with level agreements, breach clauses, and performance reviews? Honestly, a breach in marriage's contract is usually filed as irreconcilable differences and is the reason to begin divorce proceedings. I'm not saying that's right, but that's the way it is. Pre-nups and other such agreements may take away from the whole 'romance' of marriage, but after the honeymoon marriage isn't about romance anymore. It's about building a successful relationship and/or union with your spouse to better provide for any eventual offspring/heirs. Marriages don't work out very often because the marrying couple don't actually look at it like a contract. If they did, fewer people would get married, or, there wouldn't be stigma attached to divorce as a 'failed marriage'.(reply to this comment)

From conan Monday, January 15, 2007, 08:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Should read: "try and make it work"(reply to this comment)

From same as above Monday, January 15, 2007, 06:27 (Agree/Disagree?) infatuation*(reply to this comment)

from .... Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 08:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually I am married with kids I work 40+ hrs and he stays home with the kids. I pay all the bills handle the money do the shopping take care of all of the kids needs, school or otherwise. I make every major decision of course with his "agreement". But what it comes down too was I had 2 kids with the same guy so fuck it we got married. Sometimes I wish I would of thought it out a little more. I wonder if I would've done better on my own. But then if I actually had a "man" in my life would I be able to let him tell me what to do? I like having the pants on in this situation but sometimes I wish I could let my hair down and be a wife. Not happening any time soon. But hell you can't have it all. (reply to this comment)

From conan Monday, January 15, 2007, 06:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Is this guy your husband, bitch, or sex slave? You don't have much of a marriage by my interpretation of your description of your life. I mean, you won't ever 'have it all' at the rate you're going! Are you fucking kidding me? This guy, your husband, is someone you clearly have absolutely no respect for. In your own words, you're the bread winner, you wear the pants, you make all the decisions with his 'agreement', yet you don't feel like he's a man, so clearly you walk all over his pussy-whipped ass (assuming you can find the graciousness inside yourself to fuck your own husband) while still feeling as though you're not satisfied with your life choices. Why am I not surprised? 'So fuck it, we got married'. Is that really the way you feel? It's like you said 'so fuck it, I had a piece of pie'. This has to be a joke. I've heard of some bad marriage situations, but one that starts with 'so fuck it' has got to be about the worst reason for matrimony in the history of that establishment. If you had been raped by someone, and got pregnant and had a kid, would you marry him for the 'fuck of it'? I personally don't see love as a legitimate reason for marriage, because perceptions change and 'love' fades. But to get married for no reason other than 'so fuck it' is just asinine. You need a 'man' in your life, because he'd tell you that you were a fucking bitch who needed to get a clue. Then again, you probably would try and find a way to ruin your relationship with him too. Don't get me wrong, I see no problem with a woman being the bread winner or 'wearing the pants', but someone with your attitude may as well have been artificially inseminated, and then hired a full time, live-in male au pair whom you give sex to as a bonus from time to time.(reply to this comment)

From ........ Tuesday, January 16, 2007, 19:26 (Agree/Disagree?) ur assuming that because I'm the breadwinner that I'm some pushy butch feminist female. No offense to any lesbians here. Have you maybe considered unseen factors, like you don't know who the hell I am so maybe you should back off and another, I don't need a man to tell me to get a clue. I just wish I could get a break. I shouldn't of said anything. Now I remember why I don't like posting here. BTW he takes care of our kids while I work. (reply to this comment)

From conan Tuesday, January 16, 2007, 22:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Back off?? Like hell I will. I assume nothing! All I did was make observations on what I perceived as your situation based on what you wrote. If I looked into it further than you had anticipated, tough shit! This is a public forum and you throwing your shit out there is bound to get some comments and clearly you were looking for some feedback or you wouldn't have posted in the first place. Allow me to elaborate. 'I am married with kids I work 40+ hrs and he stays home with the kids' sounds like you feel like your contributions are more important. 'I pay all the bills handle the money do the shopping take care of all of the kids needs, school or otherwise.' contradicts the statement immediately preceding it. He stays home with the kids, but you take care of 'all' the kids' needs which makes his role as 'caregiver' superfluous. 'I make every major decision of course with his "agreement".' implies that any decision he 'agrees' to is a decision that you've already made, and his approval was a foregone conclusion, and/or a meaningless gesture at togetherness. 'But what it comes down too was I had 2 kids with the same guy so fuck it we got married.' is the kind of whimsical statement one might say when looking somewhat tenderly at a painful memory, or a terribly bad choice that you have since come to deal with by treating it indifferently. 'Sometimes I wish I would of thought it out a little more.' says very clearly that you didn't think it out very much. So, you regret your thought process leading up to this settlement or arrangement of marriage, and in turn, regret the marriage itself. You think your husband is inadequate as a father figure to your children, and a husband/provider as clearly defined when you said 'I wonder if I would've done better on my own.' So he's held you back! He's slowed you down and contributed negatively to your quality of life. 'But then if I actually had a "man" in my life would I be able to let him tell me what to do?' You put quotation marks around the word man as if it's an imaginary or fictitious term. The idea of a 'man' is foreign to you because clearly you've had your husband under your thumb for so long, you wouldn't know what to do if a 'man' started to make some decisions or try and actively assert himself in your life, marriage, etc. Plus, you're self-deprecating; you don't know if you could handle a man as in you're not confident you could allow yourself to have a man have a say in your life. 'I like having the pants on in this situation but sometimes I wish I could let my hair down and be a wife.' Why does one partner or the other have to wear pants? When you are married, it's supposed to be a partnership, right? That's the illusion you allude to anyways. If one is 'wearing the pants' is the other one pants-less? Isn't that counter-productive to a relationship one way or the other? 'Not happening any time soon. But hell you can't have it all.' You've resigned yourself to this situation. You aspire for more, but want it to come to you. You're hopeful that things will change, but don't want to be the one to cause it and despite hoping for the change, you expect to be disappointed. Do I think you're a 'pushy butch feminist female'? No, not at all! But you think that that phrase refers offhandedly to a lesbian woman. Because clearly, only lesbian women are butch, pushy feminists. A feminist is not a bad thing. Why is it a stigma that women attach to other women? It's idiotic! You don't need a man to give you a clue, you're right. But you could sure as hell use one from somewhere. You wish you could get a break? Bitch, who doesn't? Oh, and referring to the fact that your husband does do something for the kids as an afterthought shows how prevalent that notion is being entertained in your own head. Like you had to defend being attacked first, then, just to clarify, he takes care of your kids while you work. But once you're home, you're the queen once more! Sounds like a happy marriage to me! But hey, now I remember why I don't like hearing you bitch and moan about your shit and then bitch and moan when someone tells you it's your own damn fault that you have something to bitch and moan about! Have YOU considered unseen factors? Like maybe marriage isn't a good idea for you?(reply to this comment)

From .... Saturday, January 20, 2007, 10:46 (Agree/Disagree?) You know ur right, I should not of worded that comment the way I did. It was late. I'm sorry I even brought the subject up. It's not easy to admit that things are less then perfect. I am not resigned to my situation. I have a hope that things will get better. Sorry if I insulted you it was uncalled for I will try to remove my post. Have a nice day.(reply to this comment)

From truly Saturday, January 20, 2007, 11:19 (Agree/Disagree?) I can tell that you are a very nice person. Don’t apologize to him as he can be very harsh, but with that, he can also take a lot in return and that is what I like about him. Please understand that we weren’t so much going after you, as we were your comment. It is hard to know someone from one comment made and maybe we too easily jump at the meaning felt, which easily lacks full understanding; but that is what this site is for and it can open your eyes to a lot about yourself or at least how to better word your comments to stay clear of misunderstandings. After speaking with you in the chat room, although very briefly, the impression I got, was that you are going through a lot right now and I wanted to tell you that I feel for you and I know you will find your way. We all just have to do the best we can, make the best choices offered to us and I am sure that is what you have done. Take care of yourself and be happy.(reply to this comment)

From AnnaH Tuesday, January 16, 2007, 20:44 (Agree/Disagree?) I understand your predicament perfectly...and that's all I'm gonna say about that.(reply to this comment)

From pfffft Wednesday, January 17, 2007, 04:46 (Agree/Disagree?) say it ain't so, Anna!(reply to this comment)

From AnnaH Wednesday, January 17, 2007, 09:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh don't get the wrong idea, It's not like I supported some guy if that's what you're thinking. I just know how she feels. (reply to this comment)

From AnnaH Sunday, January 14, 2007, 16:40 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm suspicious of anyone who doesn't support themselves. (reply to this comment)

From Kevin Federline Sunday, January 14, 2007, 20:11 (Agree/Disagree?) What are ya talkin' about? I support myself! I've got a rap CD that's about the top the charts, baby! And the name is K-Fed. And, Britney! Don't come running back when my music is blaring through all the hottest clubs. You mean nothing to me, so don't think dating your music producer is going to make me jealous. That's pretty low, Britney. What did he offer to produce your next CD for free or something? (reply to this comment)

From apostate impersonator Monday, January 15, 2007, 04:36 (Agree/Disagree?) fuck off sammy(reply to this comment)

From madly Sunday, January 14, 2007, 14:35 (Agree/Disagree?) “But then if I actually had a "man" in my life would I be able to let him tell me what to do? I like having the pants on in this situation but sometimes I wish I could let my hair down and be a wife.” I am very confused on what you just said; don’t you believe that you being married would constitute the very idea of you being a ‘wife”. No offense, but you don’t seem to have found, what some may deem a desirable marriage; in fact according to what you have described, it sounds as though you have nothing more than a live-in babysitter and/or slave. To each his own and it is not my place to criticize your life, but if I may be so bold as to say, what you have is not my idea of a marriage and the way you have described treating and viewing your husband lacks respect and love for your partner. I mean you don’t even consider him to be a ‘man’ in your life. May I ask you what you deem him worthy of being described as? You seem so concerned that you are able to ‘wear the pants’ in the relationship, that you have lost a side of what a woman is, or I feel should be, towards her husband. Do you treat him as your equal? Do you know how to be a softer and more loving woman who takes care of her man, ‘lets her hair down’ with him, and is sensitive to his needs? I see love as a partnership that helps too build a person up and gives them the strength and confidence to find themselves and be the very essence of what you know and see deep within them. When you love someone you see all of them, even attributes that they may not see in themselves. Love is showing them how beautiful they are and helping them to discover and become the person that you believe them to be. Only love can do this for someone and only with love can you give this to someone. I am just curious what you do for him as it seems he does everything for you and although you bring in the money, this is only a very small part of raising a family; which by no means, deems his contribution as less worthy or beneath you. Do you build him up or do you put him in his place and make him feel worthless and less than a ‘man’? Are you hurting the father of your children by not respecting him as an equal partner, and if so, will your children grow up believing this to be how a marriage should be and how a partner should be treated? (reply to this comment)

From Hydra Sunday, January 14, 2007, 15:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't know madly, I get what .... is trying to say. Call me a feminist if you must but I think that your views on what .... was saying are pretty chauvinistic. I mean, if the genders had been reversed, then what? If a man had said what she said that would be OK? I can't see any reason why a woman can't be in the role that .... is and be in a happy relationship. It's obvious from her post that she does way more than bring in the money ("I pay all the bills handle the money do the shopping take care of all of the kids needs, school or otherwise")and that if anything, her husband is the one who has it easy (although I do realize being at home with children is not exactly what most would call "easy") and is by no means a slave/baby sitter. Your questions imply that .... is not sensitive to her partners needs. I find that very unfair and judgmental. You say that you're trying to understand and asking for people's opinions, but then when they give them you psychoalyze their answers and basically tell them why what they have is not what you want and how there must be something wrong with them. For a woman who is asking advice about love, from the way you dole out the critiques it seems you should already have it all figured out. I apologize if that seems harsh but that's what it looks like from my end. (reply to this comment)

From madly Sunday, January 14, 2007, 16:05 (Agree/Disagree?) No…. if a man had stated the very same thing, I would have taken issue with his statement in the very same way. It is not that she is the money maker, but that she doesn’t seem to give him the credit of being a ‘man’ in her life or even being a ‘wife’ for that matter. I make more money than some of my previous boyfriends and I see nothing wrong with this either. This has little to do with the person being male or female as I believe both genders should be on equal ground, with no one giving or obeying the orders, but rather each giving each other respect and love. I take offense to anyone who treats anyone in a way that belittles them or uses them; be it from a man or a woman. I have never said that there is something wrong with anyone; I have simply stated that their idea of a marriage wasn’t for me and it is my right to do so. I do not have it all figured out and although I may not know exactly what I want, I can sure tell you, what I don’t want. I am sorry that you feel I am being too harsh, as it is not my intent to offend anyone, but I have found that through asking questions about comments people tend to clarify what they have stated and I can more easily see the whole picture; which leads to proper understanding. I want to be clear that I am not asking for advice on love, and from my article, you should have gathered, that I have a lot to say on the subject which I have been thoroughly studying for sometime, thereby; giving me a some knowledge on what I am talking about as well as giving me very firm opinions. I said that I am interested in hearing others thoughts and opinions on the subject; that’s all. If my comments towards others are offending you, I am sorry, but I want to bring it all out there and talk about it. If I am wrong (such as like Married with Children (2)), I will willingly admit to it. I do not find many marriages conducive to proper growth and ones vitality and so far most commenters have reestablished these views. I am not one to ‘walk on egg shells’ nor ‘beat around the bush’ and I don’t think that I shall become this way anytime soon. They have the right to their opinions and I have the right to my opinion on their opinions and this is what I will continue to do. (reply to this comment)

From Hydra Sunday, January 14, 2007, 16:20 (Agree/Disagree?) It was my understanding that "man" and "wife" were put in quotes because the definition of each word differed from the societal standards most people use in defining the words. (reply to this comment)

From madly Sunday, January 14, 2007, 16:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Read what she said again. I may be mistaken, but I don't believe I am.(reply to this comment)

From Hydra Sunday, January 14, 2007, 16:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Well that certainly explains things, then. :: rolls eyes :: Live well, be happy and good luck.(reply to this comment)

From savage Sunday, January 14, 2007, 20:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry, Hydra, as I guess that wasn’t very clear. She stated: “But then if I actually had a "man" in my life would I be able to let him tell me what to do?” From this it seems that she doesn’t consider him to be her idea of a man or at least the kind of man that she would be willing to listen to, or maybe share a little of the decision making with. What did you get from reading that sentence?(reply to this comment)

from no children, never married Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 21:01 (Agree/Disagree?) "I've always maintained that children are here to replace us; and if we don't do something about it soon, they will!" -Stephen Colbert (reply to this comment)

From Kelly Wednesday, March 14, 2007, 09:18 (Agree/Disagree?) lol!(reply to this comment)

from Married with kids Monday, January 08, 2007 - 17:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Way too many questions in this article to give an opinion on them all, but I will say this: Before I married, I made a decision that if I ever did marry I would never marry out of love but out of practicality and compatability. If I hadn't wanted kids, marriage wouldn't have even been on the table, but I did, so in my opinion marriage was necessary. It stood to reason that a relationship would last longer and be more tolerable if both people had more to add to it than just feelings and that if in this hypothetical situation love was eventually added, that it could only be a bonus. So much better than starting out floating on clouds with the love of my life, having a bunch of kids, removing the clouds and being left with a nightmare. My decision may have been more out of self-preservation and the way I hated the roller-coaster of a ride that emotion brought. But the way I saw it marriage should be a partnership, a practical decision based on mutual goals and desires, personalities, likes and so forth. Like a business, I guess -- I apologize if that offends some for the nuts and bolts of it all. I voiced this to several people way before I got married -- before I'd even met my spouse as a matter of fact. And oh the horror of reaction. The dire prediction usually said that it would work fine until one day I'd fall in love with someone else and destroy what I had built and in the end emotion would get the best of all that practicality nonesense. Who knows. Maybe it will happen. I seriously doubt it. We've been together for ten years, and while love is blind and allows you to overlook a person's faults for a year or two before they become the most freakishly annoying things, practicality is pretty good at spotting flaws going in. I'd have to say as the years roll by I've only become happier with my decision, become more impressed with my spouse and I wouldn't change things for the world -- and I'm pretty sure from everything I've been told that my partner feels the same about me. Of course there is a bit of luck in all this. Mainly that we married while still in the group so we have the same background, and when we left the group we had the same goals. If my spouse had gone self-discovery in an opposite direction, well, that certainly would have been a problem. Like I said, similar goals, similar desires and both of us perfectly capable of filling our own "empty spaces" and not needing someone else to fix us or repair some damaged emotional recess. My two cents on marriage. (reply to this comment)

From deeply Tuesday, January 09, 2007, 23:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Please don’t feel as though I am trying to insult you, because I am really trying to understand you (and although I respect those of you who are doing it for their children), some of you married people have as much excitement coming from you, about your current marriage, as I would expect from a zombie. I hear no hint of a spark or whisper of a thrill in anything that you have said. It makes me wonder if my reason for not wanting to marry is more because of me wanting it all, and I am not willing to settle for less than what I believe it should be. I guess for me, it is all, or nothing. Maybe this is my whole problem and I am being unrealistic; and my high ideals may never allow for something more ‘achievable’ to come my way, but this compromise just wouldn’t be me. I do tend to be a very passionate and intense person, thereby making the idea of marriage as platonic as a business deal, disturbing and somehow this idea doesn’t sit right with me. I do see your points and how it does make sense in some ways, but come on, who really wants to live that way? Well, I guess you do and that is all fine and good, but I sure don’t. If I ever decide to live with someone, you had better believe that I want to feel some emotion; be it me wanting to rip their clothes off or take them in the parking lot, there had better be something that makes them more than my next door neighbor or my pal from work. I believe that having the same goals and views on life is imperative to the relationship lasting, however; if you don’t want to see that person naked, the thought doesn’t excite you, and you don’t feel for them in some ‘special’ more than a ‘friend’ way, why not just make them your business partner or continue as ‘just friends’? I don’t know, call me crazy (and you wouldn’t be the first to do so), but this is just the way I see it.(reply to this comment)

From Married with kids (2) Thursday, January 11, 2007, 10:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Not quite sure what I wrote or didn't write that gave the zombie impression, or the platonic idea. I said I married for reasons other than emotional love. Just because marriage can be practical doesn't mean there isn't great sex involved or that there isn't physical attraction. A man would have to be beyond a saint to stay faithful to a woman if he wasn't getting some and then some. If it came down to it, I can imagine staying in a less than ideal relationship for my children, but that certainly isn't the way things are. I am genuinely happy with my marriage, with my spouse, with the direction of my life and as I said, I wouldn't change things for the world. Don't know how I can write much more of whisper or spark or thrill into it than that because for me, happiness and satsifaction are pretty important and I have both.(reply to this comment)

From truly Thursday, January 11, 2007, 19:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry, married with children (2), I apologize for my implications about your marriage. My assumptions made about you, seem to have been incorrect, as it would appear, that I read more into your wording than the meaning behind them. You apparently have a good marriage, but not only that; it appears you have found that which is right for you and what works for you in life. I envy this, as there is something very peaceful in this understanding you seem to have obtained. I in no way meant to belittle or make light of what you have chosen as your ideal. You are ahead of me by being able to figure out what is your preference and finding that which makes you content. Thank you for your thoughts and feeling on the subject and know that I do respect them. Believe it or not, writing my article, and reading all of your thoughts and opinions on the subject does seem to be helping me to understand what it is that I really want and need, and for that I thank you. I wonder if a part of me is just damaged and doesn’t ‘feel’ enough in the way that would allow for me to be as open to the idea of love as I want to be. I seem to be so involved with all the details of life and obsessed with gaining wisdom, which I feel would unlock some untold mysteries that I know I am destined to discover, that I tend to overlook things such as love and relationships. I am not sure if this means relationships are not important to me or if I just haven’t found the right person yet? I guess, I may be a mess and I am learning to deal with this fact and be open with myself about having issues. Honestly, sometimes I feel broke inside, but I won’t admit; even though, I know that the reality of my given strength lies within my brokenness, which has inevitably made me strong. It is all in me and is all the same, strength from brokenness; a simple part of who I am and what my life has made me. I know I must learn to not be ashamed, but to accept it as a gift that has made me thus; knowing that if it had not been mine, I would not be me. (reply to this comment)

From casada Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 02:42 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with u, "deeply", how u can't just only have "friend" feelings, I wouldn't see any reason whatsoever in getting or staying married if there isn't any sort of romance or passion. But the thing about passion is that it can die pretty fast, as can infatuation. Or, you can be that lucky and marry a knock-out-drop-dead gorgeous person, who slowly evolves into an obese slob. With marriage, you basically need the entire package to some extent: attraction, excitement, curiosity, need for the other person, sexual compatibility and trust. Love isn't enough to keep a marriage together, because all the other things that love makes you blind for, will eventually pop up and bother you. Passion may give you reason to want to get married, but if it dies, you will have nothing left. (reply to this comment)

From Oddie Wednesday, January 17, 2007, 16:48 (Agree/Disagree?) One can always gain sexual gratification, excitement, romance, without getting married, or outside of marriage. Therefore, these things aren't the defining factors of a good marriage. In my opinion, a good marriage is something that's financially beneficial, socially beneficial, practical, and a good environment for raising offspring. As long as these areas are covered, I couldn't care much for romance or passion. Sexual compatibility is important if you plan on having sex with your spouse, but that's not a requisite unless you are trying to make a baby. That said, I would definitely select a physically attractive woman to bear my children. Looks may not be vital, but they are valuable to success, and any child of mine deserves success. The less obstacles in my child's path the better. Love is trust, and trust is a good reason to select a life partner. For that reason, I don't dispute the concept of marriage for love. But true love is at times vacant of passion and sexual desire. I love my sister very much, and I can trust her with my credit card, my car, I can trust her with my life. I could be absolutely crazy about some beautiful woman, want to fuck her every chance I get, but not trust her with jack.You rarely get a full package, so you have to prioritize. (reply to this comment)

From rainy Thursday, January 18, 2007, 00:13 (Agree/Disagree?) I hate everything about what you just said, Oddman. And I can tell you from experience, it doesn't work like that.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Thursday, January 18, 2007, 20:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you, Rain. Oddman, you are SOOOO wrong on that conclusion. Since when do you need beautiful parents to make a beautiful offspring? Yeah, there are people shallow enough to determine someone's success based on how they look, but why would you want any of your offspring working for shallow people that are bound to turn on them when things go wrong? They could just as well have gotten a stable job, relationship, or whatever "success" you are referring to. Just because someone may appear to "move up" because of their looks, doesn't mean they're going to stay there forever. It's not something that was earned. I'm reminded of the comic in the paper where two parents are watching over their baby in a crib and the Mother says "We got the egg for you from a supermodel." The Father says "And we got the sperm from a Harvard professor". And the baby looks at them and thinks "And why would I want anything to do with you ugly, dumb people?" (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Friday, January 19, 2007, 03:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I hardly need to respond to this, seeing that Savage has done very nicely below. I will point out that while a union of ugly persons normally results in ugly offspring, a union with at least one beautiful person hardly ever does. I would want any child of mine to be better, smarter, prettier, happier than I am. I will not give any child of mine the opportunity to blame anything on me.(reply to this comment)

From savage Friday, January 19, 2007, 01:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Unfortunately, Sam, I don’t feel that you are quite right on this. It isn’t just ‘shallow’ people, but all people that tend to favor beauty, and although one would require more than just looks in order to succeed, having a natural appeal could only be considered an asset. I know that it doesn’t seem fair, but being physically attractive and ‘easy on the eyes’ has been proven to have its benefits. Be it a subconscious inclination or an outright prejudice, people are more apt to favor you because of good looks. It is not the only prerequisite for success, and yes, people can go very far on talent, hard work, and personality, but if you add good looks into the mix, you are way ahead of the game. It gives you an automatic edge and can make life easier in a lot of ways, as people tend to be more mindful and eager to assist those that are pleasing to look at. It is basic human nature, not right, not wrong, maybe ‘shallow’, nonetheless; just the way it is. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Thursday, January 18, 2007, 13:29 (Agree/Disagree?) You're welcome rain. Like I say, take it for where it's coming from. I think people expect too much from a marriage. Apple trees, soft front lawn, white picket fence. Fantasy picture perfect happiness. I've known women that caused violent tornados in my head, passion, love, amour, caritas, mahal, jonetsu. But I knew I wasn't gonna marry them. I knew we both lacked the components to build a strong and mutually beneficial marriage. I hear it a lot, "we love each other so much" awww "we want to be together always" sweet, "so we got married" dumb fucks. You can "be together" without getting married. You can get married without "being together". Forget all the other cultural issues we associate with marriage. What is marriage? It's a legal recognition of two persons living as life partners. There are some social benefits, and that's it. Don't get me wrong. I love a good romance. Infatuation is like a drug. But the purpose of marriage is not to spend forever after with your drug of choice. You can do that mushy sentimental passionate relationship thing without marriage. Marriage like any other decision in life, is no different from a common business transaction. You look at your cost predictions, your profit estimates, exposure estimates, and you decide if it's viable. If there are any manageable variables that swing viability, you state them in your contract. Pragmatic I know.(reply to this comment)

From torn Friday, January 19, 2007, 01:31 (Agree/Disagree?) To an extent i agree with you. I know its terribly "unliberated" to say this, but all my life the one thing i have dreamt of is having that white picket fence, 2.5 kids, apple tree and front lawn. I very much love my longterm boyfriend, and if he asked me to marry him i would say yes in an instance, even though i know that he most likely would not be able to realize my dream. I know that if i did marry him, i would most likely not have kids till i am at least 30, have to keep working and probable never ever own my own house and this is something that is really difficult for me to reconcile myself with. I sometimes wonder if the traditional "semi-arranged" marriages of the past were better because you can learn to love the person you have married, but you cant marry someone and then hope to change thier habits and outlook on life. But here is the problem... I can see all the faults my partner has... and while i would wish for him to be more ambitious, less lazy and work harder, i know that i cant change the way he is, and if i tried i would just end up destroying what we have and becoming a horrible nag. Yet i could never imagine leaving him, because we do have something special... I just enjoy being with him, even if we are doing 2 completly different things, i have never felt so completly comfortable with anyone before and i could talk to him for hours... more than that, we understand what makes eachother tick. I guess i have resigned myself to the fact that life will not be the picture perfect fantasy i have always wanted, and at the moment i have resigned myself to that. I would say that i feel i will always be perfectly happy with the way things are, but then i look at my parents and other married ppl i know and i just see how mcuh things change and i sometimes wonder... in 20/30 years will i have grown to resent him for not helping me to realize my dreams? but surely its better to stick to something you have that is good and try to keep it alive than to go running off for the sake of a dream you will never realize? (reply to this comment)

From savage Friday, January 19, 2007, 01:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Oddie, I am trying to figure out what exactly you are suggesting, as you seem a little ‘all over the place’. Are you promoting an open marriage? I mean, you obviously enjoy the feeling of being with someone who you are sexually and romantically attracted to; so does this mean that you would marry someone for your above stated reasons and then look for such ‘passionate’ affairs outside of your marriage?(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Friday, January 19, 2007, 03:44 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm asking, why should the legal institution of marriage determine that I MUST fuck my spouse, or that I SHOULD NOT fuck someone else? Marriage is meant to stabilize a family. Passion is fleeting. Merging the two rarely results in stable passion, but rather in fleeting family. Don't get me wrong, I am normally (sic) very loyal to the woman in my life. I don't make any effort to be loyal. When the passion is there, you don't have much appetite for anything else. But I refuse to marry, to sign off the balance of my life, for the sake of keeping that shortlived passion on AR. Now then, say I do get married with a woman who will contribute to a good marriage. We both work, buy a house, buy cars, make a baby, put baby through college. At some point, we will be absolutely void of passion. And we'd consider divorce, so we can free ourselves to go search that fire again. What if that happens when our child is still young? Now, if I married a "good" wife, then I've chosen someone who shares my pragmatic views on marriage. We'll have a good marriage, which we would not want to jeopardize, for the sake of romance. But then should we be celibate? Should we give up the best years of our lives? I don't think so. As we spend time with others, we'll likely be reminded of why we chose the one we did.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, January 19, 2007, 07:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Although less so for 'making' you do it, there is a legitimate case for 'the legal institution of marriage' to restrict your sexual partners. Exactly as you said, its function is to protect and preserve the family, thus it is important to restrict taking on additional responsibilities (ie: other children) from outside that family. While I totally accept your point regarding the feelings of passion, it is also necessary to recognise the potential repercussions of fulfilling that when considering the stabilisation of the family unit.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Saturday, January 20, 2007, 02:11 (Agree/Disagree?) You could undergo surgery to avoid producing further offspring.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 04:20 (Agree/Disagree?) A condom would be a much less drastic approach, don't you think?(reply to this comment)

From sar Friday, January 19, 2007, 08:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Funny then that the law on child support gives greater support to the "additional responsibilities" taken on. The more recent child is first in line for child support. Children from the second "family" get more than children from the first. If the aim is to preserve the family, wouldn't it be more effective to simply limit the grounds for divorce? The reason for restricting sexual partners is based simply on old notions of morality and conceptions of property and ascendancy.(reply to this comment)

From clark Friday, January 19, 2007, 21:02 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't think marriage is as complicated as this column is making it out to be. Two people love eachother, raise their children together and know eachother better than anyone else. Sure there are difficult days, but they should not out weigh the good. It's a daily commitment you have to make, to eachother and to your kids.(reply to this comment)

From sar Saturday, January 20, 2007, 02:25 (Agree/Disagree?) You're thinking of something else. Marriage is a type of contract made between two people. With marriage comes a host of rights and responsibilities, not all of which have been logically thought out or are necessarily wanted by the relevant parties. Love is not a criteria for marriage, neither is raising children or knowing eachother well. Its not necessarily a daily commitment either, the contract is "signed" on the wedding day.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, January 20, 2007, 06:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Wait, love is not a criteria for marriage? Well, it is true- I'm sure there are some people that don't marry for love. Anna Nicole Smith comes to mind. But I think for the most part love is, or at least should be, a criteria for amrriage. I would hate to be married to someone I ddin't love.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Saturday, January 20, 2007, 15:35 (Agree/Disagree?) You and I probably understand the word "love" differently. In my opinion, love and attraction are two very separate things. Yes, love is a positive criteria in selecting a spouse, though not essential. Attraction in my opinion however, is entirely unneccessary. Some support the notion that marriage should be full of sparks and fun and romance, but face it, it doesn't happen. Humans aren't built that way. Our hormones don't do that. You do see couples that have been together for decades, and they still get along wonderfully. Why? Ask them. I've never met a senior couple that didn't go through their share of emotionless, passionless phases. Some make it through, while others don't. In many cases, love is not the defining component. As one retired lawyer joked, "Five years into our marriage we hated each other, but we decided we'd hold off a divorce until we paid off the mortgage and our student loans, then we postponed it till our son got through college. When that came around, we both had had enough of marriage, neither of us planned to marry again, so we didn't really have a reason to divorce. By that time we were too old and worn out for anyone else anyway." I met him and his wife on a river boat above Victoria Falls. They were one of the most adorable senior couples I've had the pleasure of meeting. In their 70's enjoying cocktails, kissing, dancing, and laughing on a boat in the heart of Africa. A successful son in investment banking (who paid for their anniversary get away), two grandaughters. Seemed a successful marriage to me. They separated more than once, and both had extra-marital affairs. In doing so, they avoided divorce, alimony, they avoided hating the other parent of their child, and all the other hullabaloo that comes with basing marriage on something as fleeting as romance. That quote you like Sam, what was it? "Love is like fireworks." I think that's true of romance, sometimes you set off sparks, sometimes you don't. But remember, even the most beautiful of fireworks burn out. In fact, the faster it burns, the brighter and more beautiful it's bound to be. I would liken true love (respect+trust, not attraction+fun) to charcoal. It isn't too bright, it isn't too pretty. Sometimes you wonder if it's gone. But it keeps you warm a hell of a lot longer than fireworks.(reply to this comment)

From clark Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 18:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't think love means how you "feel," and it is defintily not always sparks and "fireworks." You only love someone as good as you treat them. A marriage without love is not going to last. I think there are times you may not LIKE someone you are married to, but I bet those folks who stay together 50 plus years, really love eachother.(reply to this comment)

From savage Saturday, January 20, 2007, 22:01 (Agree/Disagree?) I enjoyed your analogy, as it made a lot of sense and probably does hold true in most cases. I guess my problem is I feel that kind of ‘charcoal’ love just isn’t good enough for me and I am not sure why. Maybe I am just a ‘firecracker’ sort a girl. (reply to this comment)

From rainy Sunday, January 21, 2007, 00:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Happy birthday girl...wish you fireworks today. You too, O Powerful One.(reply to this comment)

From sar Saturday, January 20, 2007, 07:36 (Agree/Disagree?) The absence of love may make the marriage more undesirable, but it doesn't make it any less of a marriage.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, January 19, 2007, 11:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Marriage is more or less a universally accepted principle, and has been for centuries. However the specific details surrounding - and sometimes defining - it, are not. Unfortunately in this country both the legislative and judiciary bodies have so completely lost any semblance of a plot as regards to sensible law making or application that it's hardly worth comment as to the 'logic' behind our current laws. They have instead taken a reactionary knee-jerk approach, combining (and sometimes contrasting) socialist grandstanding with jumping on every moving bandwagon (and even a few which they attempt to jump-start themselves). That said, child support laws were devised to address the breakdown of, or failure to adhere to the marital structure. Were that actually being applied, 'child support' would be irrelevant and thus the concept of 'first' or 'second' families is moot in the context of the properties of marriage. In the absence of the ability to draft legislature which can be effectively kept up-to-date (or the common sense to apply it) laws must be updated to following cultural and social changes within a jurisdiction. Thus restricting the grounds for divorce will not in itself address the problems we currently face where couples marry and divorce for all the 'wrong' reasons (according to the original premise), and thus destroy whatever value there once was in the institution of marriage. I would actually dispute - although simply for the sake of argument, and without any specific foundation in research - whether the association of sexual promiscuity with immorality was due to some concept of what 'morality' should be, or the practical complications it causes to the enforcement of paternal responsibility. I'd say there's room for a chicken-or-egg argument here.(reply to this comment)

From sar Thursday, January 18, 2007, 15:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Sadly, marriages in many countries are voidable if left unconsummated. That's one aspect of the marriage contract that differs profusely from most other business transactions.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Thursday, January 18, 2007, 16:32 (Agree/Disagree?) True. I think it's a silly and archaic concept. What happens for instance, if either party suffers a wound or disease which makes it impossible to fulfil that particular obligation? Say I was shot in the groin, and no longer can satisfy my spouse. Let's say said loss of ability to fulfil sexual obligations does not affect my ability to contribute to other aspects of the union, i.e. I work hard, support the family, participate in the care of our children. Should the fact that I was a victim of crime or unavoidable circumstance reflect as failure on my part to fulfil the duties of a husband? Or what if I contract some STD, and my wife is not comfortable engaging in sexual activity, with or without contraceptives? Or say I ignore my wife's requests and consume 5 kilos of cheesie poofs a day, rendering myself an obese sexually undesirable slob, should my wife be obligated to fulfil my sexual apetites? What is the point in having sex if either side has any reason to hesitate? "I don't feel like it" should be reason enough to refuse sex. And "We both feel like it" should be reason enough to have sex.(reply to this comment)

From sar Friday, January 19, 2007, 03:44 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree entirely. The consequences of refusing to have sex with ones spouse once married would vary from country to country. In the UK and Germany there isn't a legally recognised duty to fulfil the other's sexual desires once married and rape within marriages is no longer legal, but I can see it falling within grounds for divorce (your consumption of cheesy poofs could be, even without the weight gain). I don't understand why they require marriages to be consummated in order to be valid. It goes against all principle. I can only assume they never got round to change the position and maybe they're afraid of the far right and Christian extremists. The government is effectually requiring people to have sex with eachother in order to gain certain benefits. I don't see how anyone could be in favour of the proposition, except for those who uphold "traditional family values". The requirement also discriminates against asexuals, which I think, once recognised as a sexual orientation, is the best bet of challenging the law in most of Europe.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, January 19, 2007, 11:43 (Agree/Disagree?) "The government is effectually requiring people to have sex with eachother in order to gain certain benefits." I would suggest that you are missing the intended point. Rather than withholding benefits from the asexual, the government is rather recognising that in the interests of encouraging parental responsibility certain allowances should be made (benefits allowed) to couples. Thus, I would argue that our current 'benefits' ought to be re-evaluated, and only applied to those couples which jointly parent and care for offspring - with additional allowance for 'single' parents. Laws should not tie inheritance to marriage. Apart from that, why should I subsidise people simply because they are 'in love'? Them being so provides no service to society, so why should society afford them this benefit? Doing so would allow for an overall reduction in tax rates - well, they ought to be reduced in any case, but just so that you don't get this idea this could be another cash-generating scheme for our pocket-picking government.(reply to this comment)

From sar Friday, January 19, 2007, 12:21 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm not suggesting that the purpose of the legislations is to withhold benefits from asexuals, rather that in the process of achieving whatever the government intended to achieve by requiring consummation, they have created a state of affairs that is discriminatory towards asexuals. I think it would be difficult to justify the requirement for consummation of marriage under the European Convention of Human Rights as the benefits are not enough to render the discrimination necessary to society. I don't think that whether or not two people are having sex, should be discussed in courts in deciding their financial standing. Its an irrelevant consideration and is only considered because parliament requires them to do so. I agree with your proposition that benefits should be re-evaluated and that the presence/absence of children should be the central consideration rather than the marital status of the parents. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, January 19, 2007, 13:04 (Agree/Disagree?) What?!? We agree on something?(reply to this comment)

From sar Friday, January 19, 2007, 13:14 (Agree/Disagree?) I was surprised too! Admittedly, I could have misunderstood you and just agreed with what I understood which could be different than what you meant.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, January 19, 2007, 15:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Nah, you've got the gist of it pretty well there.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Thursday, January 18, 2007, 02:11 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with Bill above - although, not quite as convinced of the difference even the most stunning of woman would be able to make on offspring if the father isn't at least averagely good-looking.(reply to this comment)

From savage Thursday, January 18, 2007, 02:40 (Agree/Disagree?) That is completely false and unfounded. I have seen the most unattractive people produce the most beautiful kids, as genes go back much further than the parents, and sometimes the mix of two average people can make one very attractive person, because of the blending of their traits and features.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Thursday, January 18, 2007, 02:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I was being snarky, is all. No need to get your knickers in a twist over it.(reply to this comment)

From savage Thursday, January 18, 2007, 03:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Shadup! What's with you backing down so fast? You don't have to be scared of me. I don't bite, at least not too hard.:)(reply to this comment)

From sar Thursday, January 18, 2007, 03:20 (Agree/Disagree?) I think he's scared of rainy telling him off again.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Thursday, January 18, 2007, 05:12 (Agree/Disagree?) ... just wasn't worth the effort, ladies, nowt else.(reply to this comment)

From lisa Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 00:12 (Agree/Disagree?) and how are your relationships working so far? (reply to this comment)

From weegirlie Thursday, January 11, 2007, 07:01 (Agree/Disagree?) That's not really fair. And the implication that she is asking for something unreasonable isn't really accurate in my opinion either. Having been in a committed relationship for almost seven years, I certainly would not still be here if there was only mutual friendship, respect and compatibility. Yes those things are very important, but as was pointed out, if that's all you've got why not just be business partners or friends? At least for myself, a good relationship has got to have that extra "sparkle" and some passion, without it life in that relationship would be dull as dishwater! Of course different people want different things. Some people aren't really that passionate and all they really want is a useful companion. While of course there is nothing wrong with that, such a relationship would be just as undesirable and unworkable for some people as a more passionate and emotional relationship would be for them.(reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Sunday, January 14, 2007, 15:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Any inference was your own, it was just a straight out question. I agree with what you said. Though I do think that perhapes you do a few to many dishes. (that extra "sparkle, be dull as dishwater)(reply to this comment)

From Casada Thursday, January 11, 2007, 08:43 (Agree/Disagree?) If ur responding to my post, I just want to clarify that I don't want to imply that she was asking for something unreasonable. Again, I agree that good relationships need a spark, cuz sex will always be an important part of the relationship/marriage, and to make that work you need physical attraction. I don't have a single friend anymore who isn't divorced, and from what I have seen, the ones who started out with a great fanfare of emotions and passion were the ones who went down earliest. Also, people change, sometimes a passionate person will develop into a calmer nature while their partner remains passionate and emotional. If you don't want that to get in the way, you will need to be above emotions as a couple on some level. But yes, in the end everyone is different and needs different things. (reply to this comment)

From deeply Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 00:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Not very good; I will be the first to admit. I am really searching for what I believe to be true for me, in regards to love and relationships. I have by no means made up my mind, but I am on a quest for answers and some wisdom on the subject; thus the article, comments, and questions. I hope I am not out of line and I am not offending anyone. I just don’t honestly know how I feel and I think I should by now.(reply to this comment)

From Spring Tuesday, January 09, 2007, 11:37 (Agree/Disagree?) You know, I did the same thing. I got married based more on a "compatibility and common interests" than "burning love" - it was a choice and I was aware I was making it. I have never been too interested in all the drama that seems to come along with passionate love. Unfortunately, it seems that I should have perhaps put a little more stock in the "burning love" side of things. After 6 years we had two kids but zero desire to be together - we had both evolved and changed and our interests weren't the same. Without that physical connection we couldn't seem to find any common ground. Now I'm single and it's no piece of cake. I am not necessarily burnt out on marriage per se, but if I ever take that route again I will be damned sure that the compatibility is helped along with a healthy dose of passion. I think you need both.(reply to this comment)

From Married with kids (2) Monday, January 08, 2007, 17:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Just realized there is someone else on this thread also married for ten years and we both used Married with kids name....different people....sorry for the confusion.(reply to this comment)

From First one married with kids Monday, January 08, 2007, 22:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Ha ha! We also got married in the cult...(reply to this comment)

from Gypsy Monday, January 08, 2007 - 14:46 (Agree/Disagree?) i too think about this subject often, well, recently ive been trying to keep my mind off relationships, commitments or just simply "being" with someone. i too question every thing under the sun, and no i dont believe its wrong, altho sometimes like my x said its "emotionally and mentally exausting". im also very demanding and find it very hard to find everything im looking for in one person, call me selfish but isnt life all about surviving? how can u thrive when u are constantly compromising who you are to make someone else happy? shouldnt you be who you are, all of you, the good and the bad? and if someone should want you to be with them, shouldnt they accept you for who you are.. and more importantly, who you will become? in a way im also waiting for my "knight in shinning armour to come sweep me off my feet", but realistically speaking, we arent living in the medieval ages anymore, and knights are rare to find! many people say, shouldnt you try to be the person to someone you are so adamantly trying to find for yourself? No. you should be who you are, and if someone wants to enhance your life or simply just better it by growing together, then by all means, do so, but dont try to change just to please someone. if your going to change, do it for yourself, to better yourself! just my thoughts! good luck! (reply to this comment)

from exister Monday, January 08, 2007 - 13:32 (Agree/Disagree?) The institution of marriage must be preserved so that women can be kept in their place, which is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. God wants it that way. I swear. All of you women who have jobs and support yourselves financially are thwarting The Lord's master plan. Now bring me another beer, bitch! (reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Monday, January 08, 2007, 14:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Do you remember that Komix about the women standing in her kitchen with all of her modern machines to do the work she should be doing (ie dishes,washing, cooking) and sighing 'I'm bored' ? Even as a kid I thought she was a stupid bitch, it was my dream not to have to do any cleaning, still is actually.(reply to this comment)

from lisa Monday, January 08, 2007 - 02:31 (Agree/Disagree?) I too have thought a lot about this subject and my thinking is in many ways the same as yours. I never planned to get married or have kids, and then I did. Not out of any great 'I will love you for the rest of my life/we're soul mates/made for each other' crap but really just because we work well together. I think perhaps people put to much emphasis on being 'in love', talk about pressure you start your married life with the expectation that you will be madly in love with this person for the rest of your life. I think that the reason marriages used to last was because people viewed them as long-term investments. People didn’t expect to stay madly in love for the entire time, but they did make a commitment to stay together. In a way I don't feel looking at it as a business is a bad thing. You start as equal partners, you have a business plan of where you want to go and what you what to achieve, as in all good businesses you reassess this at various intervals. Just like in business not all union make it, but is this really such a bad thing? Wasn’t the whole idea of one partner for life simply a way of securing wealth? I think people are so varied, that no one answer is right, some will find one person that they want to be with for the rest of their life, others will find that different people have what they need at different times in their life, others will find that they don’t want anybody, and still others will find they want everybody. I think the best thing we could, do would be to chill out about the whole thing, stop fostering such romantic guilt, let people find their own way without expectations. Now lets all hold hand’s and sing Alannis Morrisete’s ‘Utopia’… (reply to this comment)

From rainy Saturday, January 13, 2007, 02:03 (Agree/Disagree?) As this article points out, http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=894 I think having a good balance is key to a happy marriage. You can't expect the other person to become your whole world. You have to have a whole world inside yourself, friends, everything, just like when you met. That's how you became attracted to each other. If you're too romantic, give everything up, and lose yourselves in a cocoon of togetherness, that spells disaster. But, like Madly, I want to believe that when you find the right person, it can remain hot and passionate... as long as you keep your individuality and don't sacrifice 'having a life'(reply to this comment)

From married with kids Monday, January 08, 2007, 04:23 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with u lisa, about how marriage is more of a partnership and that the whole "I'm-so-in-love" factor is pretty irrelevant, in fact can even hinder in the first few years of marriage. Romantic love is overrated, I believe. I've been married for 10 years now, and even though I think we had our kids at a way too young age, we got lucky since we grew together as a couple. I don't believe in "true love" nor in "the one" and I think people who do, will be greatly dissappointed. You usually hurt the ones you love...I think trust and respect are the more important building blocks in a marriage. About the high divorce rate these days, well, if you walk into a marriage thinking "If this goes wrong, I will just get a divorce", then you're bound to not give it 100%. It's not a real commitment if you know you can call it off when the going gets tough. I highly doubt that everyone is meant for marriage, or long-lasting relationships, and certainly not everyone was meant to have kids. All relationships and marriages are made up of compromises, be they big or small. To some independent people, such compromises would infringe on what they feel are their freedoms and rights. Those people would be miserable in a classic marriage and it would go against their nature to settle down. That being said I now will join in with Lisa: this is my u-to-piaaaah...(reply to this comment)

from rainy Monday, January 08, 2007 - 00:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Absolutely! (reply to this comment)

From rainy Monday, January 08, 2007, 01:30 (Agree/Disagree?) It appears there is an interesting phenomenom happening where the stereotypes no longer apply. Men still love to loudly complain about how mushy and romantic their girlfriends are, and still say things to eachother like, "Watch out for that one, she's got 'plans' (meaning marriage, babies, etc) she'll suck the life out of you", but when it comes down to reality...it seems the men are often the romantic ones, ready to dive into a commitment. It can be nice...but somehow they often seem more naive than we are...why is that? I wonder if they feel insecure about finding a girl who will marry them...because now that a woman no longer needs to be married to be a respected member of society, now that she can just be an individual in her own right, men are less assured of finding a bride. But they should be happy with that freedom...it's what they always wanted, right? To be bachelors? A thing of beauty and a boy forever? Why are men getting so traditional on us? Now we are saying the lines traditionally assigned to men, trying to keep things casual, etc. Now WE are in the sticky situations with men becoming attached, when we just want to have fun. I guess we all just have to adjust to relationships becoming real and genuine, and no longer simply based on society's expectations. (reply to this comment)

From madly Tuesday, January 09, 2007, 21:28 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree it is rather interesting, rainy. I have thought about this apparent twist for quite sometime now. I would not dare assume that most men have become this way, but from my experiences alone; I can’t help but wonder if the given stigma suggesting woman automatically being the ones to be in the hurry to marry, may not necessarily be the case. I personally hate to put any group of people into a ‘box’ and would never suggest that all men or all woman are one certain way, as I believe that everyone is different, and in so believing; deserves respect for their given unique qualities and characteristics. I do however have to admit that there are quite a few changes going on with the idea of marriage and how it is perceived and accepted among men and women. Women have grown to be more independent; thus allowing them to choose their own lifestyles, which may or may not include the readily accepted idea of marriage. There has always seemed to be a double standard between the ‘single’ man and the ‘single’ woman. A good example is the idea that a woman who has had many partners is perceived a ‘slut’, whereas a man who gets around is the admired ‘stud’. While men seem to have always idolized the idea of the ‘bachelor’, the negative connotation associated with the ‘old maid’ has always seemed less than desirable. I would like to see both men and women put on ‘even’ ground; allowing them both to be considered individual ‘people’ and not distinguished by their personal choices on sex, relationships, or marriage; with their choices, revolving around their love life, neither positively nor negatively affecting the reputation or status of the individual. There are men out there that desire marriage in the very same way that there are women with the very same hope. All I hope for is that they find each other amongst the ones of us who have a different idea on life; that even though this world is changing, it doesn’t stop everyone from knowing and accomplishing what they want and believe to be right for them.(reply to this comment)

from Marc Monday, January 08, 2007 - 00:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Random thoughts can reveal a lot about a person; here they reveal a passionate one. (reply to this comment)