Oh yeah, well, that still doesn't explain why grandmother leather fetish porn is more popular with eleven toed irish dwarf republicans than with 3 breasted latvian hermaphrodite democrats. Get a life and stop pretending that you know more than the collective corpses of lemmings that drank tequila before leaping to their abrupt end.
I think you two are just secretly hoping that the tension between Grove and I finally developes into that kiss and then sleeping together you guys have been waiting all season to see.
I think you two are just secretly hoping that the tension between Grove and I finally developes into that kiss and then sleeping together you guys have been waiting all season to see.
Nick
Whoa. Trumptman, I think it's pretty safe to say you are the only one that was visualizing that.
Oh yeah, well, that still doesn't explain why grandmother leather fetish porn is more popular with eleven toed irish dwarf republicans than with 3 breasted latvian hermaphrodite democrats. Get a life and stop pretending that you know more than the collective corpses of lemmings that drank tequila before leaping to their abrupt end.
Listen, if you would actually read what I wrote above, and you know, read the links I've posted, you would see that my position on all of this has been clear.
Peanut butter, it has been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN, tastes better on eleven toed irish dwarf republicans riding dead horses. It is fact. FACT.
I don't know what radio station is beaming the signals into your head, but I suggest you change it.
So how are radical feminists "man-haters" again? Maybe you can finally explain it this time.
I like how trumptman has time to max out the message length of most of his posts but refuses to answer a very straightforward question when called on his crap.
"Trumptman counters with the classic 'I know you are but what am I" defense. Brilliant move!"
Hey, all I have to do is point out that in this thread he's devoted a whole lot of time to goverat, advertised to groverat that he doesn't like have sex with women and then gone full-fledged creepy as he details (in stages even!) his fantasy of gay sex with groverat. Really, he's done all the work for me.
Thanks trumpetman! Oh, sorry. I forgot you can't spell your own name. Thanks, trumptman!
Hey, all I have to do is point out that in this thread he's devoted a whole lot of time to goverat, talked about how he doesn't like have sex with women and then gone full-fledged creepy as he details (in stages even!) his fantasy of gay sex with groverat. Really, he's done all the work for me.
Thanks trumpetman! Oh, sorry. I forgot you can't spell your own name. Thanks, trumptman!
yeah he took the moral lesson from School of Rock a bit too literally...
A man engaging in sexual relation with several women (simultaneously, in shifts, or whatnot) is not a polygamist, he who marries several ones is.
The way the established and recognised institution of marriage is legally defined varies from place to place and can change over time.
As it now stands, the law in most industrial societies prefers to define marriage as exclusive, hence monomgamy. It also refrains (again in most industrial societies) from meddling in what kind of relation adults engage in private and of their own volition. Those are two distinct matters in the eye of the law, since marriage is an established institution it is not a strictly private matter between consenting adults, which sex is. It seems deserving reiteration given the amount of confusion so once again: marriage and sex are two different things, one pertaining to the public domain, another to the private one.
So the analogy made by the convict Mr. Green is irrelevent, and was probably taken up by the dubious network cited above, as sensation for the masses.
Marriage and sex are not the same thing, but I otherwise disagree with the essence of this post. As I indicated in my numerous comments in the "common law marriage" thread, marriage should be recognized as fundamentally a private pledge between people. They may, or may not, decide to make this pledge before their church (if they have one) or their family and friends. Additionally, they may or may not want the state to endorse their marriage. But my view is whether or not the state gives recognition to the marriage pledge, this does not change the fundamental nature of the pledge itself. As I previously indicated, the state should get out of the business of regulating marriage. Its role is irrelevant.
That is not to say that there are not legal consequences that the state can attach to the effect of unions, including obligations for support where a dependancy situation has been created and including parental rights and obligations. The point is that in many Western societies these legal consequeces largely attach regardless of whether there was a 'legal' marriage and can even apply in the case of a person having mutiple unions: a man cannot escape parental obligations - or even 'palimony' obligations - on the basis that he is 'already married' to someone else.
It is time to look at this realistically. There are already polygamous marriages in all of our communities and this likely has been the case for some time. I was told of one that existed in my own neighbourhood, and this was not the product of the freewheeling '60s, but something that started long before (all are dead now). Whether or not they were legally married, they lived as such (probably more so than some who are married in name only). Perhaps this shocks people, perhaps not, but if it does, people should feel free to express their shock privately.
But perhaps Groucho said it best. Time to relax about all of this.
Marriage and sex are not the same thing, but I otherwise disagree with the essence of this post. As I indicated in my numerous comments in the "common law marriage" thread, marriage should be recognized as fundamentally a private pledge between people.
That is not disagreeing, that is writing about different things.
If you care to re-read my previous post (which I won't quote in its entirety again) you will notice it is about how things are, while yours is about how you think things should be.
Comments
Originally posted by LiquidR
Oh yeah, well, that still doesn't explain why grandmother leather fetish porn is more popular with eleven toed irish dwarf republicans than with 3 breasted latvian hermaphrodite democrats. Get a life and stop pretending that you know more than the collective corpses of lemmings that drank tequila before leaping to their abrupt end.
I think you two are just secretly hoping that the tension between Grove and I finally developes into that kiss and then sleeping together you guys have been waiting all season to see.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I think you two are just secretly hoping that the tension between Grove and I finally developes into that kiss and then sleeping together you guys have been waiting all season to see.
Nick
Whoa. Trumptman, I think it's pretty safe to say you are the only one that was visualizing that.
mighty spooky.
Originally posted by trumptman
There you go again... Welcome to the Shawn-iverse...
Oh gee... I've been INVALIDATED by ShawnJ.
Oh the horrors....
You are perhaps the first person I have encountered who can take the words few and radical and associate them with generalization.
Nick
So how are radical feminists "man-haters" again? Maybe you can finally explain it this time.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
So how are radical feminists "man-haters" again? Maybe you can finally explain it this time.
(Checks watch) Nope, no time for you.
Nick
Originally posted by LiquidR
Oh yeah, well, that still doesn't explain why grandmother leather fetish porn is more popular with eleven toed irish dwarf republicans than with 3 breasted latvian hermaphrodite democrats. Get a life and stop pretending that you know more than the collective corpses of lemmings that drank tequila before leaping to their abrupt end.
Listen, if you would actually read what I wrote above, and you know, read the links I've posted, you would see that my position on all of this has been clear.
Peanut butter, it has been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN, tastes better on eleven toed irish dwarf republicans riding dead horses. It is fact. FACT.
I don't know what radio station is beaming the signals into your head, but I suggest you change it.
Feh,
Originally posted by trumptman
(Checks watch) Nope, no time for you.
Nick
You had enough time to make this response.
Originally posted by midwinter
You had enough time to make this response.
Yeah, too bad he wasted so much time trying hitting the max word limit on posts nobody reads.
Originally posted by midwinter
You had enough time to make this response.
And so did you.
How much more can we debase ourselves!?!
Nick
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, too bad he wasted so much time trying hitting the max word limit on posts nobody reads.
And to which nobody replies...
You being a nobody of course...
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
And so did you.
But I never claimed I "didn't have time" to respond to you.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by trumptman
And to which nobody replies...
You being a nobody of course...
Nick
This is like one of those chess matches on ESPN.
(hushed voice)
"Trumptman counters with the classic 'I know you are but what am I" defense. Brilliant move!"
Originally posted by ShawnJ
So how are radical feminists "man-haters" again? Maybe you can finally explain it this time.
I like how trumptman has time to max out the message length of most of his posts but refuses to answer a very straightforward question when called on his crap.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
This is like one of those chess matches on ESPN.
(hushed voice)
"Trumptman counters with the classic 'I know you are but what am I" defense. Brilliant move!"
Hey, all I have to do is point out that in this thread he's devoted a whole lot of time to goverat, advertised to groverat that he doesn't like have sex with women and then gone full-fledged creepy as he details (in stages even!) his fantasy of gay sex with groverat. Really, he's done all the work for me.
Thanks trumpetman! Oh, sorry. I forgot you can't spell your own name. Thanks, trumptman!
Originally posted by giant
Hey, all I have to do is point out that in this thread he's devoted a whole lot of time to goverat, talked about how he doesn't like have sex with women and then gone full-fledged creepy as he details (in stages even!) his fantasy of gay sex with groverat. Really, he's done all the work for me.
Thanks trumpetman! Oh, sorry. I forgot you can't spell your own name. Thanks, trumptman!
yeah he took the moral lesson from School of Rock a bit too literally...
...ugh . . . . now Im a full fledged no-life geek
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Marriage is not sex, and sex is not marriage.
Polygamy means having multiple marriages.
A man engaging in sexual relation with several women (simultaneously, in shifts, or whatnot) is not a polygamist, he who marries several ones is.
The way the established and recognised institution of marriage is legally defined varies from place to place and can change over time.
As it now stands, the law in most industrial societies prefers to define marriage as exclusive, hence monomgamy. It also refrains (again in most industrial societies) from meddling in what kind of relation adults engage in private and of their own volition. Those are two distinct matters in the eye of the law, since marriage is an established institution it is not a strictly private matter between consenting adults, which sex is. It seems deserving reiteration given the amount of confusion so once again: marriage and sex are two different things, one pertaining to the public domain, another to the private one.
So the analogy made by the convict Mr. Green is irrelevent, and was probably taken up by the dubious network cited above, as sensation for the masses.
Marriage and sex are not the same thing, but I otherwise disagree with the essence of this post. As I indicated in my numerous comments in the "common law marriage" thread, marriage should be recognized as fundamentally a private pledge between people. They may, or may not, decide to make this pledge before their church (if they have one) or their family and friends. Additionally, they may or may not want the state to endorse their marriage. But my view is whether or not the state gives recognition to the marriage pledge, this does not change the fundamental nature of the pledge itself. As I previously indicated, the state should get out of the business of regulating marriage. Its role is irrelevant.
That is not to say that there are not legal consequences that the state can attach to the effect of unions, including obligations for support where a dependancy situation has been created and including parental rights and obligations. The point is that in many Western societies these legal consequeces largely attach regardless of whether there was a 'legal' marriage and can even apply in the case of a person having mutiple unions: a man cannot escape parental obligations - or even 'palimony' obligations - on the basis that he is 'already married' to someone else.
It is time to look at this realistically. There are already polygamous marriages in all of our communities and this likely has been the case for some time. I was told of one that existed in my own neighbourhood, and this was not the product of the freewheeling '60s, but something that started long before (all are dead now). Whether or not they were legally married, they lived as such (probably more so than some who are married in name only). Perhaps this shocks people, perhaps not, but if it does, people should feel free to express their shock privately.
But perhaps Groucho said it best. Time to relax about all of this.
Originally posted by Chinney
Marriage and sex are not the same thing,
You're telling me....
Oh wait. Did I say that out loud?
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Chinney
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Marriage is not sex, and sex is not marriage.
[etc.]
Marriage and sex are not the same thing, but I otherwise disagree with the essence of this post. As I indicated in my numerous comments in the "common law marriage" thread, marriage should be recognized as fundamentally a private pledge between people.
That is not disagreeing, that is writing about different things.
If you care to re-read my previous post (which I won't quote in its entirety again) you will notice it is about how things are, while yours is about how you think things should be.