|
|
 |
|
Getting On : Lovers
Never Say Forever | from madly - Monday, March 03, 2008
accessed 2552 times I think I mainly just want to start an argument, because I am bored and tired of thinking, or maybe just a good debate. Here are my random thoughts, and comments, that I have posted, on the idea of marriage, relationships and anything that is supposed to last forever. I guess it could be an addition to my “Mammals” article. Have at it, people. I would really like to hear what people sincerely think about such things
A mutual pact of delusion is the perfect way to describe two people experiencing these overwhelming amazing feelings that they hope will stand the test of time. Feelings so strong, they decide to make a promise to each other, hoping to feel this way forever. Somehow they believe that somehow promising will be enough to sustain such a passionate state of being. Without thinking it through, they promise something they have no right to promise, committing to something they should never commit to. At this moment logic doesn’t matter… they want it to last, they need it to last, and they feel they can find a way to never let such a beautiful feeling die. If it could only work this way, if feelings could always remain this strong. If there was a way two people could always change along side each other and always need the same things, in order to remain content and satisfied, it might just work. Alas, this never seems to be the case.
A pact made in a moment of passion is a pact destined to be broken as soon as the passion dies and logic appears after the misty romantic fog has cleared. They say love is blind, but it can also be plain stupid and get you to promise things for a future you are not currently living in and don’t currently hold the rights to. The sad thing is that the very promise you make, to the one you love, seems to be the thing that holds you to them and bites you in the ass when you realize you want out. “But Harry, you promised to love me forever.” “Susie, you lied to me… how could you?” The things we think that we mean when we say them. How can we not know that the only thing that never changes is the fact that everything will always change?
The only thing worse than promising your forever is believing in the idea enough to actually make it legal and now you have bound yourself to someone who is legally your partner for the rest of your life. Wow… that is scary stuff. How does that even appeal to people, I will never understand. I will lend myself to people that I fall for, if and when that happens for me, but when my feelings change I will simply take myself back again. Call me selfish, but it is “MY”self and I will treat it as if it were so. No one owns the rights to me, but me, and I will not be blindly handing those rights out on a romantic whim. I only wish I could break up with myself when I get sick of me in the same way I could from a man, but that is an entirely different subject.
Words are empty and mean nothing when there are no feelings left to give them life or depth. Empty words and broken promises are what most relationships end up as, sad, but so true. “I can love you now and I would like to love you always, but since always is not here, nor is it in my power to give you, I can only promise you my feeling for now and hope they are mine to offer you in the future, as well.” A man that could understand these words from me, or better yet, be the one uttering them, is a man I would like to spend my now with.
It is not that I hate the idea of eternal love; I actually very much like the idea of it. I just have a very difficult time believing in its existence. On the other hand, I do believe you can care about someone for the entirety of your life. It is possible to remain friends forever. I would hope that the ones we love in life will remain important to us to where we are, and will continue to be, concerned about their welfare, to where we would want to be there for them when they needed us. I just can’t imagine being romantic with the same person forever, in the way that you would want to go home to them every night, or continue to want to have hot passionate sex with them on a permanent basis. Sorry, I am just not buying it. Forever is a very, very, long time to do anything forever.
I liken it to a new favorite song that you can’t get enough of and then it gets old. How does this happen? How can you get too much of such a good thing and where does the fault lie? Who knows? Blame human nature. We get bored and we crave new things, because as the saying goes: “The grass is always greener” and sweeter, and more exciting, and probably better in bed. People stay together for years, sure, as there is a definite comfort in being with someone for so long. A lot of people even form a sort of codependence on the one they are with, to the point that they don’t even think they could be on there own, but that doesn't mean that you are in love. Marriage happens when two people decide that they want to spend the rest of their lives together and although the romantic side in me loves the idea of this, the skeptic in me finds it silly and short sighted
I want to be clear that I am not trying to give people the impression that I am looking for, or others should be looking for, romance after romance, a constant high or whim of excitement. It isn’t simply about wanting new people to have sex with and then tossing them out like the trash; it is about ones growth and need to adapt as we mature. I believe that there is a proper time to say goodbye and it isn’t because you want to do your hot new secretary, but because you no longer see your future with your current partner and all attempts have failed.
When you fight more than you love, when you cry more than you laugh, when you stop talking, because there is nothing left to say, when you stop waking them up to tell them you had a nightmare, when you stop dreaming together, when you don’t want to go home at the end of the day excited to tell that person how your day was, when you feel that you don’t understand them and they don’t understand you, when you no longer see yourself in their eyes, then maybe you aren’t right for each other anymore.
It doesn’t mean you failed, but only that yours needs changed. So let them, and you, find someone that will give you what it is you crave, joy in life, love again and laughter. If you really care for someone then you want what is best them. It would be stupid to go through life miserable in order to say that you made it and stayed together. Life is so short and I refuse to waste it on fighting and arguments that cannot be won. I want happiness and I want to be realistic about life and when it is time to move on, then man up and do it for both of you. Just because it is easier to stay together doesn’t make it the right thing to do. You could both be missing out on something that may make you very happy because you are trying to not hurt the very one you are hurting.
I realize that it is a sweet idealistic notion to find your partner for life, but picking anything for life is, to me, pretending that you know the outcome of an unforeseeable future. Being with someone for life is like having to pick only one color to stare at for the rest of all time. It is like saying you will like the same flavor of ice cream served to you everyday until you die. It is saying you will never change enough to need someone new in your life and neither will your partner. It is a limited, unrealistic, somewhat delusional idea to choose or promise to be with anything for life.
I believe that we get a fresh view on life through every person that we meet; a new perspective to view the world from. It is like being able to look at something; something that we have stared at in the same way forever, and all off a sudden we watch it become alive again, brand new, because they are showing it to us through their eyes. I believe that we need this fresh outlook or we start to die in a sense. It is about being comfortable to honestly admit that we have changed to the point that we need something new. Just because something is standard or has always been assumed to be the proper and desired way of life, such as the readily idea of finding one life partner, doesn’t mean we have to go along with it, unable to question its validity. Who is to say that many accepted views are not flawed, and are only accepted because no one takes the time to question them?
Tell me who you will be, and what you will need at the end of your life. Then tell me that who you are now and what you need at this moment is, and will continue to be, the same forever. Only then will you be able to determine if the same life partner can fulfill your present and future needs. I would rather pick my lover for right now and let life live as it will, changing me and giving me new needs and desires. Limiting yourself to one option for life is like choosing to stay the same forever. I would rather die.
|
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from DeeJay
Monday, March 10, 2008 - 18:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
I've reached this conclusion: madly, you think too much. Ha. I say this in a good way. I find your articles and sentiments entertaining, thought-provoking and occassionally enlightening.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps it is all a lie. Many positions and views that we hold can be attributed to either hangovers from the "cult" (ie: everyone should feel loved and accepted unconditionally. Thus we subconciously project this ideal onto our relationships), or hangovers from old traditions which may or may not have outlived their usefulness or relevance.
But, being that there is no higher meaning to all of this, there are no answers. We are made to feel in a process that is entirely biological and perfunctory. Why? Who gives a shit? I don't know. Because god was a sadistic perv who thought it'd be funny?
I hold to certain views because they keep me from going insane or dreaming of the end. I base them on what has worked for me personally. Though sometimes I do wish I had the will to think like you.
(reply to this comment)
| | | |  From Falcon
Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 07:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
Is it possible to think too much? When is it too much, and who determines the limit? 'Too much' to someone who rarely thinks may be 'too little' to someone who does. Grant it many thinkers become cynics because the more you think about things, the more you realise the futility of it all. However, as a 'thinker', knowledge means everything to you, therefore you would rather 'know' than not know, hence to cease from thinking would be equivalent to the cessation of breath and life. You despise people who don't 'think' enough, and as much of a relief as it might be for you to be able to stop thinking, the idea of it is also too terrible to consider. Perhaps then the idea of insanity is rather tantalizing. The philosopher's conundrum? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 10:17
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Are you sure about taxes?
"They sent some Pharisees and followers of Herod to bait him, hoping to catch him saying something incriminating. They came up and said, 'Teacher, we know you have integrity, that you are indifferent to public opinion, don't pander to your students, and teach the way of God accurately. Tell us: Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?' "
He knew it was a trick question, and said, "Why are you playing these games with me? Bring me a coin and let me look at it." They handed him one.
"This engraving—who does it look like? And whose name is on it?"
"Caesar," they said.
Jesus said, "Give Caesar what is his, and give God what is his."
Their mouths hung open, speechless."
Mark 12: 13-17 (The Message) (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from madly
Monday, March 10, 2008 - 12:58
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I know that I joked about wanting to start a fight, because I was bored, but I was only joking. If you have something to say that pertains to my article, I would love to hear it; otherwise, please take it elsewhere. I was really enjoying hearing what people had to say, and I thank those of you who made comments, but it is really getting off the topic, at present. Sorry, but please discontinue. Thank you.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from steam
Friday, March 07, 2008 - 07:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Damn you Madly. You post these long insitghtfull comments that make me take time to think about and digest issues, and then even though many thoughts run through my head about what you have written. There are so many qualifiers to every point I would make that it seems pointless to even have a go at it. I go ahead and ignore your posts because it seems like so much work to respond, even though I find them entertaining and thoughtful. Your conclusions on love etc are exactly what I thought back when I was fifteen. Of course "make it work" had just come out, and so marriage was a lifetime commitment that was not the same as a lifetime commitment to love, (it was more of an eastern culture practical decision based on (I can barely type this it is so disgusting) "whether you you would make a good team for the Lords work". We were only going to be around another decade or so anyway, at which point "the cathedral of love" would give you plenty of opportunity to exlore whatever you wanted to (at least if you were an exhibitionist, and I suppose not gay). I got married at sixteen, quite willing to commit my lifetime to my wife (unless God came along and said time to "put her on the alter son") but unable to say "I will love you forever". I did have romantic feelings, but never overwhelming ones, and my attachment grew over time. She did have the romantic feelings and as those died so did the attachment, and eventually so did the marriage. Did I gain by my level headed understanding of the chemical reaction basis to these feelings, and not letting them ovewhelm me? I think not. Although love is a kind of madness I will not consider myself to have experianced all that is to be human untill I have gone truelly mad at some point. Which is all the more unlikely the more jaded I have become. When I see someone in that state, inwardly I am both amused and a little jealous. The point is that you cannot experiance the insanity while retaining the rather sane notion that no matter how "complete" the love seems to you in the moment, it is not complete and will one day die. I don't think the insights expressed give the power to decide which illusions to give into as someone said. Maybe others can do that, but I am to aware of the illusion to be able to give in to it. The reason that this insanity seems a little less dangerous than a religious one, is that it is destined to wither of it's own accord. Is there a solution? I doubt it. It is like the tension between whether freedom or happiness is more important. I fall towards the freedom end, but the real reason if I am honest with myself, is because my gut knows I couldn't be happy without freedom. If there were actually a way to be so and I could remove the "instinct" who knows what the right call would be. How's that for disjointed rambling? That's the kind of gibberish your posts make run through my head. And now I have cluttered up other brains with this drivel.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From steam
Sunday, March 09, 2008, 14:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yeah that was a tad pretentious and might have been more accurately put, "this particular hypothesis on love and commitment was the way my makeup led me to think back at fifteen". But I don't pray before I speak anymore LHM. So I may have been offensive. On the upside, no flirtation is properly played without a little offending here and there to apologize for.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | from geo
Wednesday, March 05, 2008 - 23:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
The theorist Lacan said it best when he said: Love is giving what you do not have to someone that does not exist.
What we require is beyond what any single human can provide (this has not gone unnoticed by the opportunistic and the religious) and what we offer is not within our capabilities.
If the post modernists have accomplished anything of value in recent history it is the methodic destruction of our metanarratives. There are no great truths. There are no great gods. There are no great love stories. There are only great deceptions--and biology seems to agree.
Like everything alive, we will always be restless because we will always be hungrier and hornier than we need to be. Life is a constant overcompensation, because, we have not evolved to be happy--we have evolved to reproduce.
As nihilistic as this all sounds it is at its core a positive declaration. Once we understand the deceptions which structure our intersubjective social environment , we are no longer ruled by them. Rather, we have the power to choose which deceptions we allow to complement our lives.
Love, marriage, romance novels, Hollywood love stories, DeBeers, Shakespear, religious texts, your parents, Lacan--all liars of the highest order and devoid of any inherent value. Only you can give value, and by extension, power to them.
In other words, contain your ideological monsters or be contained by them.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From geo
Thursday, March 06, 2008, 22:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
I should clarify (before I'm accused of putting words in Lacan's mouth) that only the statement in the first line is Lacan's, the rest is only my interpretation. Also, a possibly applicable and related Lacanian proposition, sometimes confused with the above, is, "love is giving what you do not have to someone who does not want it." (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from William Butler Yeats
Wednesday, March 05, 2008 - 12:09
 (Agree/Disagree?)
When you are old and grey and full of sleep,
And nodding by the fire, take down this book,
And slowly read, and dream of the soft look
Your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep;
How many loved your moments of glad grace,
And loved your beauty with love false or true,
But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you,
And loved the sorrows of your changing face;
And bending down beside the glowing bars,
Murmur, a little sadly, how Love fled
And paced upon the mountains overhead
And hid his face amid a crowd of stars.
-- William Butler Yeats
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from DeeJay
Tuesday, March 04, 2008 - 21:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
While I can relate to many of the above mentioned feelings and thoughts, I can't help but think it's a bit of a generalisation to say that the concept of "marriage for life" per se is wrong or shouldn't happen.
For one, perhaps some problems lie more in the attitude people take towards it then in the concept itself. Life is tough for some and much of it is spent surviving; work, sleep, eat. The idea of some stability, not having to explain yourself again, not having to prove yourself again, not having to play the who is dominant and who is submissive game again, not having to go looking for it again, knowing basically where you stand and what you can expect, is still an attractive notion to me.
Granted making any big decision based solely on passion or spur of the moment feelings is a silly idea. But to say that it's always doomed to fail is a tad fatalistic. There's a one in a couple billion/trillion (whichever) chance that I'll win the lottery, but hey I still play. Every day I will probably have to interact with people I don't like, who will make me do things I don't want to do, I will say things I don't mean and breathe air that will damage my health. Doesn't mean I'm going to stay in bed.
Of course you will change, and of course your partner as well as your needs will change as well. If you can respond to the changes in each other, then you have a chance. The notion of which in many cases, to many people, is worth the risk.
I will add that divorce is inevitable sometimes. Sometimes you gamble, sometimes you lose. You may get a raw deal, you may get your feelings hurt or your heart broken. But that's life isn't it? Marriage ain't 100%, but nothing is.
I know I will probably get flack for this, but I'm also of the opinion that one reason for alot of quick marriages and quick divorces is just selfishness. Relationships take sacrifice and often doing things or giving up things you don't want to for the sake of someone who you hope will do the same for you. Also making room for each other in the midst of all your dreams and goals. Those unwilling to sacrifice parts of their lives or their own goals in the short term, end up lonely in the long-term. So I think the question could be, do you want a perfect world on your own, or a flawed one with someone else?
(reply to this comment)
| From JB
Sunday, March 09, 2008, 01:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well written and poignant!
You're aboslutely right and that is why God instituted the concept of marriage...precisely because it's not good to be alone.
Perfection can come in many forms or guises, and a lot depends on what each person values or doesn't. People who value personal freedom, for example, will find perfection in being completely in control or in an enviroment where they don't feel any specific obligation that is beyond their ability to commit to. It's a kind of whimsical existance though...not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but not the most mature, IMO! Sometimes one's definition of freedom can just be a delusion and is actually rebellion against what one should feel responsible to or for.
But since we're all made differently, and have different needs it's impossible to legislate how one should feel or how we should go through our lives. I agree that selfishness probably plays a bigger role in people's decision-making process than is probably good for them, and if we could somehow get out of the mindset of looking out for Numero Uno then there's probably a whole lot more that life could offer us, and we could offer life. But humans tend to be short-sighted and often make short-term decisions which end becoming cyclical. This may not even be entirely the person fault, and may be due to circumstances or other issues beyond their control, and may be hard to break out of.
Personally I like the idea of commitment, but I also like the idea of freedom, and I imagine that that's pretty much the same with everyone. Also at times my desires change...sometimes from day to day...which is why IMO a relationship that is pliable and vibrant, but also commited is what I would consider a perfect relationship! the formality of marriage can be comforting, and for some an absolute necessity in order to feel secure, and in those cases that's exactly what should happen. For some the security may come in the exact opposite way, by not feeling too commited. I'm not sure how healthy that kind of security is, but if both people feel exactly the same...and find that the best way to keep their relationship alive (as many do!) then that's probably what's right for them!
This is a complex subject if you want to explore it in depth with all it's different angles, provisos, variations and possiblities, and much of what I've said may just be stating the obvious.
As far as being in a relationship goes I'd prefer an uncomplicated relationship (with all the necessary components coming naturally), and so whatever it took to achieve that is what I'd consider worth doing!
I hope I've made (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Shaka
Monday, March 10, 2008, 11:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Whoa! Is this idiot J.F.[full name removed by admin]? If so, what's this pedophile loving, mentally challenged freak doing back on here? Hi Frampy, long time no insult. Next time you run around in public naked spouting gibberish about Jesus coming back, let me know so I can get it on youtube before you get set back to the padded room. Why did they let you out by the way? You're obviously not cured. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Shaka
Monday, March 10, 2008, 11:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ahhh, I'm sorry, I remember. That was your dad who did the whole streaking evangelism thing. You're just the one who's [... removed by admin] not allowed to see your kids because of alleged abuse. I guess one shouldn't completely blame you. Your parents were so obviously insane that they should have never been allowed to reproduce. Hereditary insanity is a bitch, no? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From JB
Monday, March 10, 2008, 11:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
How is it JW that you seem to have assigned to yourself the right to call one particular person a nuiscance, as opposed to anyone else just as nuiscansical!
It takes a small person to be so biggoted!
And I wouldn't push your luck with any more Jesus jokes, even though it's not an unpardonable sin...it's pushing pretty close to the boundaries! I don't expect much more of Shaka...because he is already a damned soul...I still hold out hope for you though! Don't sin against your own soul!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From The Devil ®
Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 05:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
I would have absolutely no problem getting it up for forty days. I don't think your puny mortal frame would survive that long though. Me and jesus once had sex for about three of your earth years straight!
I'm not familiar with the term "injourous". But I'm guessing it's some sort of STD from the sounds of it. So give me a ring when you've got that all cleared up ok?
I've heard your earth doctors have amazing creams now for that sort of thing.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From JB
Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 08:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
I know, you've almost got to feel sorry for them! But I suppose for some that might suffice.
Reminds me of a joke though:
This suicide bomber tries to detonate his bomb and his bomb malfunctions and only a tiny small explosion goes off, which knocks him out. When he comes round he's in a hospital and there are nurses hovering around him. He sighs and smiles really big, but then exclaims, "you're very lovely, but where are all the rest?" :D
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Falcon
Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 08:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Similarly, if I 'felt sorry' for people, I might almost feel sorry for you...your illusionary 'afterlife' which seems to suffice. As things stand, however, I find you simply pathetic, and not even worthy of my distain or the air you breathe. Why don't you leave the earth's resources to people who appreciate this life and will actually do something useful with theirs? This conversation is no longer entertaining, rather boring, the jokes are lame and you're an idiot, so I will discontinue engaging you.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Falcon
Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 08:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Similarly, if I 'felt sorry' for people, I might almost feel sorry for you...your illusionary 'afterlife' which seems to suffice. As things stand, however, I find you simply pathetic, and not even worthy of my distain or the air you breathe. Why don't you leave the earth's resources to people who appreciate this life and will actually do something useful with theirs? This conversation is no longer entertaining, rather boring, the jokes are lame and you're an idiot, so I will discontinue it.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From JB
Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 06:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm guessing that "party" is a euphamism!
Revelation 18:2,8,20,21,22
2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;
Revelation 19:1-3
1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:
2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.
3 And again they said, Alleluia And her smoke rose up for ever and ever.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From JohnnieWalker
Monday, March 10, 2008, 11:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Don't flatter yourself. You're not the only person on here I consider a nuisance.
As for unpardonable sins, let me say this: The Holy Ghost can go fuck herself/himself.
You see, JB, unlike you, I'm not afraid of an imaginary being damning my imaginary soul to an imaginary hell. Live a moral life out of fear, if you chose, JB. But try to understand the fact that it is possible to live morally without threats of hellfire and disapproving deities.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From JB
Monday, March 10, 2008, 11:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh, so you mean there's more folks here on whom you've bestowed this dubious honour! Are we ALL supposed to not flatter ourselves, but just be grateful that you "notice" us at all?
Go back to your pom-poms!
Jesus was actually being pretty generous in that statement, but it's obviously wasted/lost on you!
I hate to bust your imaginary bubble, but just not believing in something doesn't make it not real. Someone as intelligent as you should know that!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From cheeks
Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 08:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
You know this really has gone on long enough. How dare you call yourself a Christian. You are nothing but a bully with a bad attitude, you value nones belief but your own. You throw Gods name about like you own him. Your cavalier attitude about his promises piss me off. I think you need a readjustment go read the story of the men who were thrown into the fiery furnace. I think the phrase is, 'But if not be it know unto thee O king that we will not serve thy god or worship thy golden image which thou hast set up.'
But if not. I think that is the phrase you should focus on and not glibly throw your pseudo Christian beliefs around. Don't for a minute assume that you know the mind of God and damn everyone here to hell because they do not believe the same way you do. Go and pick the beam out of your eye and stop looking for the moat in theirs. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From JB
Monday, March 10, 2008, 12:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
So you only take the empire's proof do you!? I thought someone had told you by now to beware of the dark side, but you obviously haven't listened.
Magical?...Well...I guess the force is strong with me, but the power doesn't originate from me, so I guess I have to give the credit where it's due! ;)
I don't believe in Evolution, but that doesn't make it any truer!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Sick of your Crap
Sunday, March 09, 2008, 12:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't care whether you are in the Family or not. This web site is for SGA's to talk and interact with each other.
You are NOT "talking or interacting" you are "PREACHING AND WITNESSING" to "Lost Sheep"
You have the EXACT same slimy passive-aggressive fake-friendly attitude that a Family shepherd has. Reading your posts is like sitting through a fucking "devotions" again.
BTW, your God doesn't exist, you know why? Because if He did exist He would have struck Berg down with lighting before he had a chance to vomit out that filth you call "MO Letters".(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From DeeJay
Monday, March 10, 2008, 01:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well that is a slightly simplistic interpretation of my comment. I was merely expressing my agreement and then the sentiment that the simplicity seemed ironic. Often we don't see the forest for the trees.
The rest is a very long debate which would be endless for the "simple" reason that truth will always be to someone whatever it is they choose to believe.
I'm definitely on the "against" side of the wall. I believe that there is no superior being and therefore, he/she has no children. I'm not opposed to faith, I'm opposed to religion.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From JB
Monday, March 10, 2008, 02:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ok fair enough, that's your choice.
But you have to admit that the statement, "It's so simple, it's true" leads one to gather from that that you are infering it's truth to it's simplicity, hence my comment!
"Pure religion before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to keep himself unspotted from the world" James 1:27.
What would be your opinion on that religion?
Do you believe there are inferior beings? Because if you do and yet don't admit to a superior one, then basically you are putting yourself in the postion of the "Most High"! Last person I heard of who tried to do that was lucifer!
"GOD'S truth goes marching on"...may it ever!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From DeeJay
Monday, March 10, 2008, 03:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are right. It was wrongly worded.
What do I think of that "pure religion". Being that that is from the bible, and by a christian, that is just one religion's version of pure religion. Should we do our best to help those in need? Absolutely! Must we keep ourselves "unspotted" from the world? Well first, it is impossible to be a part of something and be untouched by it. Secondly......
What are these "spots" that we are supposedly to avoid anyway. Drinking more than 500ml of beer a week? Listening to music that has been either "tainted" or "poisoned"? Talking to someone without trying to convert them? Surfing the internet instead of the bible. Seriously, what are all these "spots" that the world leaves on us that we are supposed to avoid? And how are they to compare with the "spots" that religion leaves on humanity. ie: The Crusades, suicide bombings, human sacrifices, 9/11, leaving the Jews to die off by wandering around in the desert for 40 years (Hell, if I was there I would've been complaining my ass off as well.)
And yes I believe that there are inferior beings (though I'd just love to have someone refer to me as lucifer. Ha.)There are inferior beings who are born inferior, and there are those who are made inferior by their own efforts, or the efforts of others. I consider myself inferior in many ways, some my own fault, some not and some others the fault of one deluded man's quest to be recognized as king. An overcompensation for the fact the sane world had rejected him as such.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From JB
Monday, March 10, 2008, 02:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Fair point Rainy.
But would you agree that
a: Religion has motivated people to do good things who might not otherwise have been motivated.
b: It's not only religion that sometimes makes good people do evil things.
c: Even without religion, many of the evil things done in the name of religion might still have been done, and possibly many more even worse.
d: Religion in some form or the fear of punishment from a Superiour Being either in this life or the afterlife or the hope or reward, has turned many away from evil things they might otherwise have committed and restrained mankind in at least some form.
I agree of course that many evils have been done in the name of false religion...I also believe that much good has been done in the Name of God and Jesus and true religion. I hope and believe that when all is said and done the good will outweigh the bad! "Where iniquity doth abound there grace doth much more abound"
(reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Monday, March 10, 2008, 03:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
a: No. I believe those people would have done good anyway. I don't find my desire to help others has lessened in the slightest since losing my God delusion. I still look for small things I can do for the people and world around me every day. Now the difference is I've grown up. I'm not trying to please my big parent in the sky, not chalking up merits, or any of the other immature and dependant motivators that were once instilled in me. I simply do it out of love for humanity and the earth.
b: Yes, it is only religion and ideology that makes good people do evil things. To suppress your own ethics and inborn morals because you are convinced you must be wrong,or unworthy to think for yourself, this is the work of religion. Religion needs to be the authority on right and wrong. When you cast off religion, you follow your heart. Therefore you will not do evil from a pure, unselfish place they way a religious person would.
c:Without religion, as I said, evil people would still be evil, and the atrocities would still have happened. That was my point. I do think there would possibly be less bloodshed however as in some situations they may not have had strong enough power over the minds of their soldiers, etc. There may not have been the same element of blind devotion.
d: The fear of punishment and hope of reward is so childish that any clear-thinking adult can see through it. It's for the weak minded. I don't believe it really works. At best, it's manipulative. At worst, it brings out self-centred motives for good behaviour and cheapens everything we do for each other. I felt that even growing up in the family. You sacrifice to help someone, and somebody tells you you're going to be rewarded in Heaven. The inner feeling I'd have is, "I didn't do it for a reward. Don't cheapen my heartfelt gesture by suggesting I would have done it for glory or personal gain."
(reply to this comment) |
| | From JB
Monday, March 10, 2008, 03:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
a: To assume that all mankind is motivated by the same high ideals as yourself is pretty naive don't you think? I'm sorry if that sounds offensive, but as honourable as your intentions or ideals are...you can't expect that all mankind sees things through those eyes. It's unrealistic.
b: How can you make such an assertion as that. You have nothing to back that statement up with and you're just shooting blanks! The rest of that sentence is drivel!
c: Yes, you may be right in the sense that religion has been a powerful force in swaying and controling people's (soldiers etc.) thoughts and thereby actions, that's where false religion HAS been responsible for many attrocities...sadly! You could also argue that the same power over the minds of men has also been a restaining influence in many cases.
d: Again, very noble sentiments expressed at the end. But like I said, since much of humanity may not see exactly with your same noble views, childish means of motivation are not a bad thing if they produce good results.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Monday, March 10, 2008, 03:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
I will only respond to B, because that is the only area in which I see your point. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I'm not talking about the normal greyness of life in which we all do the wrong thing a lot of the time but are basically good people. That's just being human. I'm talking about evil- true evil such as killing or abusing other humans. And I'm talking about doing such things with a mindset that you are doing it (perhaps against your instincts, which you are suppressing) because you truly believe it is the right thing to do. It is what God or your religion is asking of you.
Of course we are all both good and bad. But religion has a special knack of manipulating people into thinking bad is good.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From rainy
Monday, March 10, 2008, 04:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just a small list of killing or abusing other humans in the name of religion...off the top of my head
The Inquisition
The Salem Witch Trials
All Witch trials
Slavery
Circumcision
Female genital mutilation
Honour killings
Suppression of Women
Polygamy
Lack of personal choice
Homophobia
Racism
Heresy/Blasphemy being considered crimes
Raising your kids in a cult
Mandatory isolation
Lack of access to information
Withholding science and education
Forcing children to marry
I'm sure the list is much, much longer than that.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Fish
Monday, March 10, 2008, 04:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Some of your claims seem rather vague. I fail to see what slavery, honour killings, racism, or the suppression of women have to do with religion.
Of course, religion may have been used as an excuse for any of the above behaviour at some time in their history, but to me this hardly denotes blame on religion's part.
I could make "a list of killing or abusing other humans in the name of science," which would be quite impressive and contain many of your above mentioned claims. Slavery, racism and the suppression of women were all at one time or another carried out "in the name of science," but no one would suggest science is to blame. (reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Monday, March 10, 2008, 04:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
Slavery was ordered by Jehovah, the God of the old testament.
Honour Killings are done in the name of God, although Islamic scholars say it has nothing to do with true Islam. On the grassroots level it is done in the name of God.
Suppression of women- right throughout the entire Bible. In fact, almost every religion. You don't have to study very far to learn that.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From JB
Monday, March 10, 2008, 07:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
I see this guy has a whole slew of verbal diaroeah in which he mouths off at this that and the other...and freely blasphemes....
He has got some truth in what he says (he'd hardly get an audience if he didn't have some truth mixed in!)...but His blasphemy stinks!
If he's so righteous about blaming everyone else, why isn't he out in Africa or Asia or somewhere doing good...rather than just sitting around comfortably mouthing off!
No better than the hypocritical preachers he condemns and a lot worse....at least many are trying to help and minister in their communities!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From rainy
Sunday, March 09, 2008, 13:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
This site is for SGAs whether in or out, and no matter what their current belief system. Can't we be tolerant of each other no matter what part of our personal journey we happen to be at? Or are we dictating everyone's personal stance now? As long as JB is accepting of us and our views I feel we should show him the same courtesy. If he does have the same passive-aggressive attitude we've seen in TF, perhaps he hasn't been out that long. Give him a chance to find himself, I say.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Jailbird
Sunday, March 09, 2008, 13:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Who is "us"? What, pray tell, are "our views?" You don't have to tolerate him, walk away from your computer. I agree the guy is making a fool of himself in some respects, but isn't that his right? It always amazes me unnamed people attemtp to set themselves up as spokespoersons for "us"?
Plenty of people are preaching on this site promoting their views, be they atheistic, agnostic, etc. ...
If he is witnessing I don't think his brand of ideology is going to attract many converts. But the beauty of life afterwards, should be that people are allowed say whatever it is that they want, which means that he can say what he wants, you can attack his views etc. ...(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From rainy
Sunday, March 09, 2008, 14:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
As upsetting as it may be to have a family sympathiser on the site, I don't believe he was saying that in order to witness to anyone. He only stated his personal stance after being directly asked more than once. What was he supposed to do? Lie? If we can't accept a person (who is one of us) with a stance we are diametrically opposed to, how can we expect family kids who are still under the full brainwashing influence of the cult to feel safe here and that this is a place for them, too, to sort themselves out?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From JB
Monday, March 10, 2008, 02:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
May I add that even in attacking or disagreeing with another's posts or points of view, courtesy can be employed so as to minimise the person writing the post taking your "attack" to personally.
For the most part (most is a relative term!) I think people here do try to be at least relatively courteous, at least to "their own", by that I mean those they agree with or have an afinity with or who are in their "clique", or those who support their point of view. It's only human nature to feel so inclined!
I applaud those with the maturity to extend that courtesy to those with whom they disagree!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From rainy
Sunday, March 09, 2008, 13:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
This site is for ex SGAs whether in or out, and no matter what their current belief system. Can't we be tolerant of each other no matter what part of our personal journey we happen to be at? Or are we dictating everyone's personal stance now? As long as JB is accepting of us and our views I feel we should show him the same courtesy. If he does have the same passive-aggressive attitude we've seen in TF, perhaps he hasn't been out that long. Give him a chance to find himself, I say.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From JB
Sunday, March 09, 2008, 01:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well written and poignant!
You're aboslutely right and that is why God instituted the concept of marriage...precisely because it's not good to be alone.
Perfection can come in many forms or guises, and a lot depends on what each person values or doesn't. People who value personal freedom, for example, will find perfection in being completely in control or in an enviroment where they don't feel any specific obligation that is beyond their ability to commit to. It's a kind of whimsical existance though...not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but not the most mature, IMO! Sometimes one's definition of freedom can just be a delusion and is actually rebellion against what one should feel responsible to or for.
But since we're all made differently, and have different needs it's impossible to legislate how one should feel or how we should go through our lives. I agree that selfishness probably plays a bigger role in people's decision-making process than is probably good for them, and if we could somehow get out of the mindset of looking out for Numero Uno then there's probably a whole lot more that life could offer us, and we could offer life. But humans tend to be short-sighted and often make short-term decisions which end becoming cyclical. This may not even be entirely the person fault, and may be due to circumstances or other issues beyond their control, and may be hard to break out of.
Personally I like the idea of commitment, but I also like the idea of freedom, and I imagine that that's pretty much the same with everyone. Also at times my desires change...sometimes from day to day...which is why IMO a relationship that is pliable and vibrant, but also commited is what I would consider a perfect relationship! the formality of marriage can be comforting, and for some an absolute necessity in order to feel secure, and in those cases that's exactly what should happen. For some the security may come in the exact opposite way, by not feeling too commited. I'm not sure how healthy that kind of security is, but if both people feel exactly the same...and find that the best way to keep their relationship alive (as many do!) then that's probably what's right for them!
This is a complex subject if you want to explore it in depth with all it's different angles, provisos, variations and possiblities, and much of what I've said may just be stating the obvious.
As far as being in a relationship goes I'd prefer an uncomplicated relationship (with all the necessary components coming naturally), and so whatever it took to achieve that is what I'd consider worth doing!
I hope I've (reply to this comment) |
| | From JB
Sunday, March 09, 2008, 01:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well written and poignant!
You're aboslutely right and that is why God instituted the concept of marriage...precisely because it's not good to be alone.
Perfection can come in many forms or guises, and a lot depends on what each person values or doesn't. People who value personal freedom, for example, will find perfection in being completely in control or in an enviroment where they don't feel any specific obligation that is beyond their ability to commit to. It's a kind of whimsical existance though...not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but not the most mature, IMO! Sometimes one's definition of freedom can just be a delusion and is actually rebellion against what one should feel responsible to or for.
But since we're all made differently, and have different needs it's impossible to legislate how one should feel or how we should go through our lives. I agree that selfishness probably plays a bigger role in people's decision-making process than is probably good for them, and if we could somehow get out of the mindset of looking out for Numero Uno then there's probably a whole lot more that life could offer us, and we could offer life. But humans tend to be short-sighted and often make short-term decisions which end becoming cyclical. This may not even be entirely the person fault, and may be due to circumstances or other issues beyond their control, and may be hard to break out of.
Personally I like the idea of commitment, but I also like the idea of freedom, and I imagine that that's pretty much the same with everyone. Also at times my desires change...sometimes from day to day...which is why IMO a relationship that is pliable and vibrant, but also commited is what I would consider a perfect relationship! the formality of marriage can be comforting, and for some an absolute necessity in order to feel secure, and in those cases that's exactly what should happen. For some the security may come in the exact opposite way, by not feeling too commited. I'm not sure how healthy that kind of security is, but if both people feel exactly the same...and find that the best way to keep their relationship alive (as many do!) then that's probably what's right for them!
This is a complex subject if you want to explore it in depth with all it's different angles, provisos, variations and possiblities, and much of what I've said may just be stating the obvious.
As far as being in a relationship goes I'd prefer an uncomplicated relationship (with all the necessary components coming naturally), and so whatever it took to achieve that is what I'd consider worth doing!
I (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from rainy
Tuesday, March 04, 2008 - 12:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hmmm...yeah I don't have too many thoughts on marriage either way. Thoughts on marriage are for the young and starry-eyed. That I am not. My thoughts are on the individual. My personal journey, and I also take delight in the personal journeys of others who allow me into their lives. If there should come a time that my path and the path of someone I love are identical, then I will happily walk with a companion. If our paths should later diverge, I hope I shall have the strength to then walk alone on the right path for me. That's about it really.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from vix
Tuesday, March 04, 2008 - 08:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Meh. Marriage is great for some people but not so great for others. My general view is that I think it's a mistake to expect it to last forever, but I don't think that the knowledge that it probably won't last necessarily takes away from the value of a marriage and what that commitment can represent to the two people involved.
If I get married again (and I probably will, but it won't be a conventional arrangement, that's for sure - I won't want to live with my husband fulltime, for example) I won't be promising 'till death' because I don't want to promise something that I don't know for sure that I can keep to. If I don't end up finding a man who can accept my particular brand of marriage, I am quite content to remain on my own. I'm not going to get into the reasons why I think I probably will want to get married again.
(reply to this comment)
| from Tester
Tuesday, March 04, 2008 - 07:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Here is my thoughts on marriage. Don't do it!!!!
50% of all marriages end up in divorce. This is NEVER good for the husband. Usually he loses full access to his own children. He has years and years of child support to pay and is considered "damaged goods" by a lot of women.
women usually bounce back faster and can find another husband that will support them, but the man still has to continue his high payments to the X and try to piece back his own life and find a women that will take him with all that baggage.
Love does not last and marriages do not last. Simple as that! Divorce is so easy and accepted these days that it's almost inevitable.
So for all you 21 yr old love birds out there that think you have found the perfect mate and will grow old together, think again. The statistics show that in 3 to 5 years you will be fighting each other in court over who keeps the TV and who gets the dinning set. (For the record, I got the candle sticks and she got the dinning set.)
(reply to this comment)
| From fragiletiger
Tuesday, March 04, 2008, 13:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Here are my thoughts on marriage. If you want to DO IT!!!!!!!!!!
It’s 50/50 which great gambling odds are. Though if kids are involved and it does end please try and act like an adult and put their needs first, instead of using them as pawns to get back at each other.
If it ends so what? Does something have to last forever to be worthwhile? Do you feel cheated when a movie ends? Lost when your favourite meal is finished?
I think people put to much onus on marriage, a lot of people going into it expect it to fix everything, and for them to be floating on wedded bliss, and if you are married people automatically assume that you embrace those beliefs.
To regress – CHILL MAN!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From AndyH
Tuesday, March 04, 2008, 15:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Right on! I'm so sick of everyone trying to apply their little formulas to life. If you are X, you should never do Y, unless Z, FUCK OFF!! Life doesn't work that way. People can't always plan ahead, and when they do, they often plan wrong. That's life. People fuck-up.
If you are so perfect that you don't have to take risks and make stupid decisions, I'm really happy for you, but that's not the norm, and it's not very interesting either. So have fun with your perfect life. I'll be over here at the fuck-up's table trading some life stories.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Tuesday, March 04, 2008, 12:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
That's ridiculous. Why would it be easier for a woman to find someone to "support" her than for a man to find another woman? The man usually only has his kids some of the time by his own choice! How many men would choose full-time single parenthood? I think they'd all become bitter about it if that was the norm!
Women don't usually find someone to "support" them, they usually end up working fulltime and being a fulltime single parent. While the men are back to bachelorhood. Don't give me that crap.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Tester
Tuesday, March 04, 2008, 13:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
That is absolute BS to say that the men would rather bachelorhood over parenthood! Unfortunately you are right that the men do go back to bachelorhood because the courts don't give them equal parental rights with their kids.
And yes the women do have to go back to work to support themselves. Thats life, they have to work just like everyone else, but they also get a good portion of the husbands money in child support. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Tester
Wednesday, March 05, 2008, 11:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Kind of like your dumb ass assumed that we are only "meet the bare minimum of assistance" to our child's mothers? (When in fact we go above and beyond.) In reality you don't really know shit about what most fathers really go through in a divorce with kids.
Seriously, what makes you an authority on the subject? Do you even have kids? Have you ever even been through a divorce process where kids are involved? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Tester
Wednesday, March 05, 2008, 11:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
What a load of BS. You know nothing about how much we end up paying and what it costs to raise a kid and how much we actually participate in the kids life!
I pay a hell of a lot more than my X ever uses towards my son in a month and on top of it I participate in his life tremendously. My son has everything that he could ever want at BOTH my house and his mothers house yet I foot the bill for both. No one helps me out towards his care when he is with me, towards me having to have a large house so he can have his own room, for all the activities that he does when he is at my house. Yet I still have to pay her to do all that at her house.
Just because a few women got knocked up by losers and only get a few measly dollars a month, or are to scared or stupid too take the father to court for the full amount doesn't mean that the rest of us don't pay a lot.
And for Rainy to say that our child support contributions are pittance is just plain wrong. I know for a fact that what I pay a month is no where near what we used to spend on him when we were married so why I have to pay all this extra to her makes no sense.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Wednesday, March 05, 2008, 12:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
If it's 20%, how could it possibly NOT be pittance? Living with my son, I'd say I spend 90% of my income on him. But, it's great the arrangement you two have with a room for him in both houses, etc. It actually sounds ideal. Just don't go and ruin it for him by being resentful and bitter about it. Children can feel things like that.
The other bit about "getting knocked up by losers" was just nasty. Yeah, I made some mistakes, but I made my decisions from a place of conscience. No, I haven't taken my child's father to court for money. I don't want the kind of acrimonious feelings you are displaying here to be part of anyone's dealings with my son. My ex gets to be a disneyland dad, but at least we're all friendly and my kid has a good life.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Tester
Wednesday, March 05, 2008, 13:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ahhhhh, so there we have it. Your X is exactly the kind of idiot that should be paying as he is NOT in the kids life. People like him that you allow to slack of on their responsibilities are exactly the ones that should be paying high payments.
Fathers like me that ARE in the kids life should not be paying such high payments as we are there for the kid in his every day life, paying for his needs and food and housing out of our own pockets ON TOP of the child support payments to the X that are way more than she would need considering that I also have him weekly.
So why don't you shut your mouth about how hard you have it until u make that loser that knocked you up pay his fair share. Until you an speak from experience about someone in my situation I have nothing to say to you. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From AndyH
Wednesday, March 05, 2008, 12:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
You know nothing about what I know. Not that it matters, but it just so happens that I have experienced both the costs of supporting a child that lives with you and who's life you participate in, and a child that lives with someone else.
Regardless of my personal experience, every situation is different, and being open-minded means understanding the individual and not casting a blanket judgement on a life-choice that is completely none of your business. On top of which, your language is loaded with words that reveal how bitter and hateful you are. You are not just angry at your X, you're angry with women, so you want to believe they're all greedy and "we" men are a bunch of victims. Does it happen? Sure! Should we go about foaming at the mouth and trying to tell others what to do? Well, I guess you have that choice, but it's really tiresome. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Tester
Wednesday, March 05, 2008, 13:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
See, there you go again, running you dumb ass mouth about something you know nothing about.
I am not at all angry at my X. In fact we get along fine. I am bitter at the biased court system. And I am not at all angry with women, I actually probably have more women friends than guy friends and get along with them all great.
But I see that trying to reason with you is useless. All your incapable of seeing any other situation other than your own.
And as for rainy, if your spending 90% of your income on your child, you need a better job! LOL.
I'm done with this thread. (reply to this comment) |
| | From AndyH
Wednesday, March 05, 2008, 14:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh, you're done? What a shame. We will really miss your vitriolic and broad judgement. Yet somehow I am not seeing any other situation than my own. What you are expecting is for people to agree with your extremely biased perspective, and if they don't, then they are close-minded? Seriously, if irrational hatred is something I am "incapable of seeing" then good for me. I hope no matter what happens to me I don't end up so bitter as you, it only clouds the mind. Good luck to you. Be sure to alienate anyone who thinks differently than you, because they are morons. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From cheeks
Wednesday, March 05, 2008, 11:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
First of all I don't think that twenty percent is that much of your income, and from what I have seen most houses have at least two rooms, usually three or four, so I don't quite know what sacrifice you think you are making for him to have his own room in your house. Secondly the money you give his mother is not just for things he needs it is for shelter and warmth as well. If it is such a big issue for you, which it obviously is, why don't you talk to her and see if you can pay some bills instead. Thirdly seeing as we still live in a sexist society, you are most probably making more than she is, and that is why she needs that money.
One more thing while I am on the subject. My sister went to court and they granted her three hundred dollars a year for two children. So I think in her case pittance is the right word for her situation. I say stop whining and suck it up. If you don't like it you should have wrapped it up or slammed it in the window.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From madly
Tuesday, March 04, 2008, 11:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Financial issues are hardly the only factor one may consider when determining who in fact fairs better, or worse, after a divorce. Men do not always end up paying more child support, or alimony, unless they were the main providers. I personally know two women who pay alimony to their ex-husbands because their income was higher, and they happened to be nice enough to support them for periods of the marriage. Again, for men or women, money isn’t the worst part, just a part. I would have to argue that the emotional distress attached to any divorce would far outweigh any financial loss, but that is just my opinion.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From steam
Friday, March 07, 2008, 07:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
I do not want to become embroiled in this discusion of "father vs mothers" as it seems way to much generalisation is being slung around, and for this reason I considered posting anonymously. However I never have done so on Moving On, and I told myself I never will. If I cannot stand behind my statement I don't feel I should make it. This is short anyway. Here is a statistical link which shows that in terms of outcomes Tester was very close to statistically accurrate on sole custody, and when joint custody is removed from the picute, the women have somewhere close to seven to one odds in their favor. Now it can certainly be said in many cases the women may have gotten the custody because only she wanted it. However there does seem to be a probability of inherent bias in the system. http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats17.htm(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From afflick
Tuesday, March 04, 2008, 08:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
The 50% number is a bit more nuanced than that. If you're:
1)White, 2)educated, 3)not a very young adult, than your marriage has an 80% percent chance of survival.
Also, divorce is getting very expensive these days, too expensive for lots of middle class people. And courts are opening up to the idea that paternal rights are just as valuable as material in child custody cases. A lot of divorced women were in the workforce in the first place and therefore do not need to "find another husband that will support them."
What happens to individuals in their lives and what statistics show are usually quite different, for while statistics only show broad trends, individuals must live their lives and have experiences that are quite uniquely there's.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Tuesday, March 04, 2008, 08:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
There are other things that impact too, in the UK I believe it's something like for every child born there is an added ten percent chance of divorce (up to three children, then I can't remember what happens to the stats). I'm glad I've already had children - I've been there and done that and if I ever get married again that relationship will be about me and him and not about the stress of raising a family.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From clark
Wednesday, March 05, 2008, 12:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't think I could handle a marriage just about "me and him." I would get so bored of him. Kids keep us humble, they make us laugh, they teach us every day about generosity.They keep me motivated. They bring out the kid in me. They bring out the best in my husband which helps remind me of why I married him. (Very helpful when you've been married a while.)
When we do get a chance to have "just me and him" we treasure it because it's rare. Absence makes the heart grow fonder.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]