Printable View
Where I live having sex is irrelevant to your married status. We don't know the common marriage and married means married before the state and nothing else. Annulment of a marriage overhere means merely not going through with the ceremony in which you would have been legally married.
I find the American approach to marriage bordering on the insane.
And in order to explain to Hazir that marriage actually does have something to with what goes on in the bedroom, you mentioned nothing even related to the bedroom at all. Got it. Par for the course and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Which "where you live" are you talking about here, given that you live in two different countries and cultures, AFAIK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Well, we have that in common at least. But the rest of Europe has a similar view on the sekzing being a required component of marriage... remember that case [posted on here] of the French guy who was successfully sued by his wife, or ex-wife, for not giving her the cock frequently enough? :bulb: I mean, crazy as all hell, but it definitely demonstrates that part of the marriage contract is some frequency of genital interaction, even in Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Actually you were telling me about the problems of people who are not married. I presume because they can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
By having more options under the law it actually is a weakening of regulation. Where the weakest point of regulation is that all options are acceptable. That's the same as not having any regulation. So it is a reduction in regulation. It also gives people the correct mind set of broadening what's acceptable in these regards. I like how it's being done gradually, because that is the best sort of change so as not to cause turmoil and cause shocks within society.Quote:
Not really. It's a step towards broadening the support of a specific type of sexual morality on behalf of the government
On the other part. I Think it's obvious all candidates become more moderate as the race goes on, it's a very logical tactic, and there are ways to encourage your base to vote (which i think in this case they already have been doing so to great effect... the GOP and fox news have ran an extensive energizing anti-obama campaign.. people are going to vote.) That is not really the issue, it's whose going to vote for who.
Edit: You could probably get a divorce because of no sex, but I don't beleive in the U.S. you can sue for such a reason.
Edit 2: Why should marriage be something recognized by the government?
I think there are good reasons for the government to know whose married and whose not. I think such acknowledgement encourages marriages, adn thus increases social bonds... but from the government point of view it gives them estimates of how many people are married, what demographic, and helps them determine population growth, avg household sizes etc... And lastly, you don't have to get married. you can be married to one another in the "more spirtual sense/socially meaningful sense" without the government knowing or caring.
I'm sure if you don't offically get married you could be a polygamist if all parties were consenting, and you could even have a marriage like agreement/powers, if you make some sort contractual agreement with one another, upon a person being sick, or upon a break up... etc...
Missing the point, but whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon
Anyway, your point about the government need to slow the progress of harmful ideas like tolerance and acceptance of others' consensual choices is well made, and that ideal even needs to be expanded into other areas, like racial and gender relations. Since the government hasn't done anything to slow down equal rights for women and niggers, we have literally millions of niggers and women (and even women who ARE niggers as well :eek:) walking around, thinking they should be treated like human beings, which is clearly too shocking and tumultuous for society to accept all at once, so really, they need to be put back in their rightful place before we can even discuss granting any more rights to other, even worse groups (like the faggots).
Well, right, like how the government and society has good reasons to know everything about everyone's "private" lives, and even other demographic facts about the citizenry, like, say, which citizens are Jewish. Maybe we could even get the government to have all the Jews wear like a Star of David on their clothing when they go out in public, so that the rest of us would know who might try to rip us off in some evil, greedy scheme. Surely, nothing bad could come of such a well-intentioned and innocuous idea, like providing information to everyone to help prevent them from getting "jewed." And plus, it's even OK for the Jews, since it's not like anyone's forcing them to go out in public anyway, so if they don't want to wear the stars, they just don't go out in public! It's the best kind of solution, because it's fair to everyone, and no one's "forced" to do anything!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon
Yeah, I get that aspect. Sort of. Europeans, in general, wouldn't face the same brick wall when it came to life/death decisions for loved ones, as Americans do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Of course. If your not married you have a lot of this kind of issues. And Hazir made some examples himself. Just the sex thing is not a problem (well in France it is).Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Non-consumation is grounds for annulment in most countries as far as I'm aware.
I only found an article concerning annulment because of non-consummation concerning marriages between Swiss and non-Swiss citizen. But that is because of immigration laws.
Maybe in common and ecclestical law, but not in Civil Code countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
P.S. 4CC marriage legislation in Holland and Turkey doesn't really differ all that much. And Puhleeze, the Daily Mail as a source for serious news?
Turkeys marriage legislation is not that much of a surprise, they copied the Swiss civil code.
Slow is good whether the change is positive or negative. Let's say in 500 years we have a much better government and much better social poliices.Quote:
Anyway, your point about the government need to slow the progress of harmful ideas like tolerance and acceptance of others' consensual choices is well made, and that ideal even needs to be expanded into other areas, like racial and gender relations. Since the government hasn't done anything to slow down equal rights for women and niggers, we have literally millions of niggers and women (and even women
It would be a bad idea, a horrible idea... to try to jump from now in 2000 to the years 2500's social stances. It would be huge uproar, it wouldn't work.. even if objective by all forms of measure their views are superior. This is what i'm trying to communicate to you. I hope you learn from that and apply in your other world views.
Lastly looser/broader regulation is a form of dergulation.
I'm sure they would like to know that very fact... They have good reasons to know it. Just like which members are white, which are chinese, vietanemese, this demographically information is vitally important to managing a country correctly. Schools would like to know this information as well when it comes to the demographics of their class rooms.Quote:
Well, right, like how the government and society has good reasons to know everything about everyone's "private" lives, and even other demographic facts about the citizenry, like, say, which citizens are Jewish.
Who quoted the Daily Fail?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
In the UK its grounds, can't find much about it to see where it is or isn't.
Whoever posted that piece about a French guy having to pay up for not having sex enough with his wife.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Probably the not having sex part came up like that now famous cat.
I read that French story on the BBC and heard it on the radio, so it was never just a Daily Fail article.
The Daily Mail is the source, before that you can't find anything about the actual case.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Daily Mail article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-marriage.html - Dated 7/9
Daily Telegraph article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ck-of-sex.html - Dated 5/9
You can hold your hands up to the mistake in your own time :p
The Daily Mail article came top of Google when I searched but does not appear to be the oldest, so sorry but you're wrong. In fact there are a lot of other sources dated before 7/9. Anyway, what would you be intending to imply? That this case never happened, the Mail made it up, and everyone else just followed them without checking for sources?
The Mail misinterpreted something and everyone else followed suit would hardly be unprecidented
The Mail misinterpreted something and everyone else travelled back in time to follow suit would be though.
Wouldn't it be great if the US Christian conservatives said they support gay marriage as a matter of Civil Rights, and the GOP wouldn't have to do this silly litmus testing in CPAC or Value Voters?
Holy Shit...we agree on something.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
How do you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Anyway, any paper/news outlet misinterpreting something and everyone else just picking it up and running with it would hardly be unprecedented. Remember... this?
Its not the misinterpreting of it, its that every other paper and news agency has a time-traveller with them I find odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I don't know, the paradoxes created by time travel would seem to explain a lot about the British press.