Joined: 21 Jun 2007 Posts: 592 Location: , Hoosierland, USA
Thanks: 10
Thanked:1
Posted: 02-25-08 12:55pm
Roberta777
wrote:
Maybe I did misunderstand.
However, I like Lonestarguy and his input
to this forum.
Oh. I see. marriage is not a necessary
option. Maybe not. For me, when I met my
true husband, it was love and we had a
great life together.
For some, marriage is not a legal/binding
option. Why should it ever come down to
that? You love a person, or you don't.
Do I believe that same sex marriages
should be sactified? Yes. I do. You can
not quantify love, and who has the right
to it. Then, of course, the legal
ramifications that come with
homeownership, securities, children and
all of it. It is time to give people the
equal rights they
deserve.
Roberta777:
I can't see that we are that far apart. I
agree with your premise that marriage is
not for everyone and I have no problem
with a relationship like the one Birch is
in. They are both adults and they love
each other and, in their case, I can't see
that a marriage license would change it.
Happy now, Birchie?
Just for argument's sake, I personally
like Birch and her honest, mature posts,
but I have sparred with her in the past
about relationships and what marriage
brings to it. Remember, this is just my
view and doesn't make either of us is
right or wrong. She believes that
commitment comes without a marriage
license and I disagree. To me, the
greatest commitment you can make to
another person is to propose to spend the
rest of your life with them. I can see
that some strong relationships can exist
without marriage, but, as long as you can
leave whenever you want, that strikes me
as commitment to a person but not to a
union.
However, what I do object to is when a
baby is brought into the equation for
whatever reason. I think the point
futureshock was trying to make was that
today living together prior to a marriage
commitment is coming to younger and
younger partners. Many of these
relationships are blessed with a pregnancy
even though one or both partners are not
mature enough. They sometimes do get
married, but in the exact opposite order
of marriage, then the baby.
I also agree with sanctifying same-sex
marriages because everyone deserves the
right to love whomever they want and they
deserve equal rights.
|
Birch
Moderator
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4049 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 143
Thanked:13
Posted: 02-25-08 13:00pm
lonestarguy
wrote:
Roberta777
wrote:
Maybe I did misunderstand.
However, I like Lonestarguy and his input
to this forum.
Oh. I see. marriage is not a necessary
option. Maybe not. For me, when I met my
true husband, it was love and we had a
great life together.
For some, marriage is not a legal/binding
option. Why should it ever come down to
that? You love a person, or you don't.
Do I believe that same sex marriages
should be sactified? Yes. I do. You can
not quantify love, and who has the right
to it. Then, of course, the legal
ramifications that come with
homeownership, securities, children and
all of it. It is time to give people the
equal rights they
deserve.
Roberta777:
I can't see that we are that far apart. I
agree with your premise that marriage is
not for everyone and I have no problem
with a relationship like the one Birch is
in. They are both adults and they love
each other and, in their case, I can't see
that a marriage license would change it.
Happy now, Birchie?
Just for argument's sake, I personally
like Birch and her honest, mature posts,
but I have sparred with her in the past
about relationships and what marriage
brings to it. Remember, this is just my
view and doesn't make either of us is
right or wrong. She believes that
commitment comes without a marriage
license and I disagree. To me, the
greatest commitment you can make to
another person is to propose to spend the
rest of your life with them. I can see
that some strong relationships can exist
without marriage, but, as long as you can
leave whenever you want, that strikes me
as commitment to a person but not to a
union.
However, what I do object to is when a
baby is brought into the equation for
whatever reason. I think the point
futureshock was trying to make was that
today living together prior to a marriage
commitment is coming to younger and
younger partners. Many of these
relationships are blessed with a pregnancy
even though one or both partners are not
mature enough. They sometimes do get
married, but in the exact opposite order
of marriage, then the baby.
I also agree with sanctifying same-sex
marriages because everyone deserves the
right to love whomever they want and they
deserve equal
rights.
"Spar" is just a great word. I think I
will try to add it into my daily lexicon.
"To me, the greatest commitment you can
make to another person is to propose to
spend the rest of your life with them." I
agree! I agree!
|
lonestarguy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 21 Jun 2007 Posts: 592 Location: , Hoosierland, USA
Thanks: 10
Thanked:1
Posted: 02-25-08 13:19pm
Okay, put your dukes up. We're about to
spar.
Sorry, I've been out with a chest cold
and, remember, I'm old. It takes me a
while for my autoimmune system to kick
booty on those nasty bacteria.
|
Verizon-y
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3291
Thanks: 2
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-25-08 13:33pm
A lot of marriages end in divorce, but the
fact is that unmarried couples that live
together break up at TWICE THE RATE of
married couples.
|
Birch
Moderator
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4049 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 143
Thanked:13
Posted: 02-25-08 14:00pm
futureshock, do you mean couples who lived
together before marriage are more likely
to divorce?
|
Verizon-y
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3291
Thanks: 2
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-25-08 16:50pm
No. I mean people who live together
instead of getting married.
|
Roberta777
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Jun 2007 Posts: 755 Location: ,
Thanks: 109
Thanked:241
Let's Face It Posted: 02-25-08 20:21pm
You get married, you marry into the whole
family, both sides of it. The family is
there for good reason. They have
themselves walked this path. You hit a
bit of patchy ground, a bit of ice on the
road, they have been there done that. It
comes down to family support, experience
getting there and who is to say we can't
all use some advice? Who is better to
give it to us than somebody who loves us?
And, they have a vested interest in your
relationship working out.
I believe to make a commitment before the
whole nine yards of here comes the baby
and oh! we are doing so well and it all
may work out! For me it would not.
It is like everything that I know to now.
You need a contract, whether it is buying
a house, a new car, anything of value
usually comes with a condition that you
indeed want to be in possession of the
item. Don't get mad here. But, frankly,
I would like to feel I was worth the other
person making that commitment that he was
willing to put his name on the line.
Otherwise, it is just too easy to walk
away when the tough gets tough and the
rough gets rough and it is time to get out
of Dodge.
Some of you are very young and don't feel
you need that commitment. Just the
differences in our generations.
|
lonestarguy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 21 Jun 2007 Posts: 592 Location: , Hoosierland, USA
Thanks: 10
Thanked:1
I agree Posted: 02-25-08 21:42pm
Roberta777
wrote:
But, frankly, I would like
to feel I was worth the other person
making that commitment that he was willing
to put his name on the line. Otherwise,
it is just too easy to walk away when the
tough gets tough and the rough gets rough
and it is time to get out of
Dodge.
That's exactly the situation I was
describing concerning marriage as a legal
and binding union. That is real
commitment. I'm from your generation and
this seems the natural progression of a
relationship to me.
And don't call me frankly. J/K
|
Roberta777
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Jun 2007 Posts: 755 Location: ,
Thanks: 109
Thanked:241
HaHaHa Posted: 02-25-08 22:33pm
I just love your sense of humor
lonestarguy. And, where is the picture of
your grey cat? Mine keeps coming around
here. Still feral. Everytime I walk out
the door he runs from one area or another,
he runs to show himself. Have tried to
get him to come closer. May be quite a
struggle. Have to get Kristy down here.
She can tame even the most frightened
heart of the beast of little cat lost.
Kristy is my beautiful daughter.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-25-08 22:37pm
Hey, I'm from the next generation (what
are we calling ourselves these days?
Confused, perhaps?) and I think marriage
is the logical next step. I wouldn't be
fighting for gay-marriage rights if I
didn't feel that way.
|
lonestarguy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 21 Jun 2007 Posts: 592 Location: , Hoosierland, USA
Thanks: 10
Thanked:1
Hey, Eiri Posted: 02-25-08 23:35pm
Eiri
wrote:
Hey, I'm from the next
generation (what are we calling ourselves
these days? Confused, perhaps?) and I
think marriage is the logical next step. I
wouldn't be fighting for gay-marriage
rights if I didn't feel that
way.
Does your generation even have a name yet?
Hopefully, you will be the smart
generation and learn from all our
mistakes. I don't have any worries about
you as an individual at all.
Roberta: Thanks for your kind words. No
cat anymore as we got a cute little white
dog. I'll try to find a pic and post it.
|
Verizon-y
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3291
Thanks: 2
Thanked:0
Re: I agree Posted: 02-26-08 00:04am
lonestarguy
wrote:
Roberta777
wrote:
But, frankly, I would like
to feel I was worth the other person
making that commitment that he was willing
to put his name on the line. Otherwise,
it is just too easy to walk away when the
tough gets tough and the rough gets rough
and it is time to get out of
Dodge.
That's exactly the situation I was
describing concerning marriage as a legal
and binding union. That is real
commitment. I'm from your generation and
this seems the natural progression of a
relationship to me.
Ditto. Many people that say they don't
need that piece of paper are saying, in
reality, that they are not worth the other
person committing to them, but it's ok for
that non committal person to use them for
bearing children.
|
killbill
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 425
Thanks: 34
Thanked:35
Posted: 02-26-08 00:17am
who is more non-committal though? the
person who won't get married or the person
who will walk away from someone because
they have a different view of marriage?
long term relationships are about constant
compromise and negotiation. i understand
someone drawing a line but it's not really
fair to assume someone is being used
because they don't force the other person
to either marry or be kicked to the curb.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-26-08 09:51am
Personally? The person who won't get
married. If you're too stubborn to sign a
piece of paper, then you're not mature
enough for marriage and you're not ready.
There wouldn't be a fight for marriage
rights if it meant "nothing". Gays and
lesbians would technically be perfectly
happy if that piece of paper was
"worthless". But it's not, as they care,
and I care. It's not just the benefits;
it's the MEANING of the thing. Maybe it
doesn't have meaning to you - fine. But it
has a deep meaning, a meaning of equality
and worthiness and love and commitment to
many other people.
|
Birch
Moderator
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4049 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 143
Thanked:13
Posted: 02-26-08 10:26am
futureshock
wrote:
No. I mean people who live
together instead of getting
married.
Oh, so they may not have even have
committed to each other for life.
I wonder if there is such a stat out there
for couples who have committed to each
other and not gotten married.
Anyways, it's not for everyone.
|
Verizon-y
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3291
Thanks: 2
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-26-08 10:57am
Birch
wrote:
futureshock
wrote:
No. I mean people who live
together instead of getting
married.
Oh, so they may not have even have
committed to each other for life.
I mean the people who say they have
committed for life, and even have children
together, but one or both of them doesn't
want to get married.
Quote:
tr>
I wonder if there is such a stat out there
for couples who have committed to each
other and not gotten married.
Anyways, it's not for
everyone.
Do you mean as in how many people do this
compared with how many get married? Or
how many of them break up compared with
marriages ending?
I don't have an answer for the first
question, but for the second one I have
seen statistics. They range from saying
that cohabitating couples break up at
twice the rate of marriages ending in
divorce, to a much higher percent of
cohabitating couples breaking up in
comparison to marriages ending.
|
Birch
Moderator
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4049 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 143
Thanked:13
Posted: 02-26-08 11:22am
futureshock
wrote:
... They range from saying that
cohabitating couples break up at twice the
rate of marriages ending in divorce, to a
much higher percent of cohabitating
couples breaking up in comparison to
marriages
ending.
I'm really not being obtuse, really, , but do you
mean "lifetime commited" cohabitating
couples versus just cohabitating couples?
To clarify, I know many folks who
cohabitate to 'test the waters', and they
have not made a commitment.
I was specifically wondering how many
people are out there like my bf and myself
- no kids, no contract, and a lifetime
commitment. Just curious. I highly doubt
stats are kept on this, anyways.
I have read some of the replies on here
about marriage contracts. Here is a
different perspective to consider:
Why would you commit to someone for life
if their word isn't good enough for you-if
you need 'backup' from a third party?
Does that make sense?
|
killbill
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 425
Thanks: 34
Thanked:35
Posted: 02-26-08 12:03pm
...and marriage doesn't mean the SAME
thing to everyone. I know exactly what
Birch means about cohabiting couples.
There is a huge difference between my
relationship and say, my best friend who
lived with her boyfriend for 7 years.
They were a lot younger at the time and
had a lot of growing up to do. They were
just starting out in life and by the time
the 7 years had passed they realised they
had different goals in life and moved on.
With me and my partner, we were already
old enough to know ourselves and what we
want in life and were able to
intentionally make a committment to each
other in a mature way. We have every
intention of being together for life and
we have already experienced some of the
"richer or poorer" and "in sickness and in
health." The only thing that matters is
that WE know, not what others looking in
think.
|
lonestarguy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 21 Jun 2007 Posts: 592 Location: , Hoosierland, USA
Thanks: 10
Thanked:1
Posted: 02-26-08 13:28pm
Birch
wrote:
futureshock
wrote:
... They range from saying that
cohabitating couples break up at twice the
rate of marriages ending in divorce, to a
much higher percent of cohabitating
couples breaking up in comparison to
marriages
ending.
I'm really not being obtuse, really, , but do you
mean "lifetime commited" cohabitating
couples versus just cohabitating couples?
To clarify, I know many folks who
cohabitate to 'test the waters', and they
have not made a commitment.
I was specifically wondering how many
people are out there like my bf and myself
- no kids, no contract, and a lifetime
commitment. Just curious. I highly doubt
stats are kept on this, anyways.
I have read some of the replies on here
about marriage contracts. Here is a
different perspective to consider:
Why would you commit to someone for life
if their word isn't good enough for you-if
you need 'backup' from a third party?
Does that make
sense?
That makes sense in your world, but what
do you have against being married legally?
If it's "just a piece of paper", then
what's the problem? If you are essentially
married in the eyes of the community, then
why wouldn't you? I was under the (perhaps
mistakenly) impression that all women grew
up dreaming of their wedding. Was that not
important to you personally?
Is there something wrong with a "real"
commitment to you? I could ask you the
opposite question. Why would you commit to
someone for life if they are not willing
to put their word on the line for you?
Just as a point of reference, when in your
relation with Mr. X did you mutually
decide that you would be together for the
long haul?
You can't deny the fact that two people
who are not married, but committed to a
long-term relationship, can walk away any
time they want with no entanglements. In
fact, is a long-term unmarried
relationship considered by both partners
as a pact for life or just until one or
the other decides they have fallen out of
love? Do you have the level of interaction
and commitment with each other's family?
Because when you marry, you really do
marry the family also.
What I think futureshock is saying is that
a pregnancy changes everything, especially
the dynamics of a relationship. Is there
still a stigma for a child born out of
wedlock today? Is that fair to the child,
especially when he or she grows up? Or,
are the feelings of the parents more
important than that of the child?
As far as you and your partner are
concerned, I would personally say that you
should be married for the reasons I
stated. But, knowing you now and assuming
your bf is just as mature, then I would
not think less of you if you didn't. I am
able to argue a point without forcing my
views on others.
I agree with futureshock that it does seem
like younger partners, without your level
of maturity, are becoming pregnant and
then forcing a decision to be made whether
they are ready or not.
And, finally, I would also be interested
in the statistics of couples in your
position. Toodle-loo!
|
Birch
Moderator
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4049 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 143
Thanked:13
Posted: 02-26-08 14:05pm
This isn't personal lonestarguy; but I
never know much of the point of responding
about this subject. It's difficult to
relate to someone else the unique
perspectives we have, as well as the
healthy relationship we have. I can say
that our relationship is unique because we
are unusual individuals but then people
jump to conclusions about maturity and
commitment. Which is fine with me,
because they do not know anyone like us.
But I do love you very much and am going
to respond anyways. Plus, I don't like my
egg drop soup and need to while away my
lunch time.
lonestarguy
wrote:
That makes sense in your world, but what
do you have against being married legally?
If it's "just a piece of paper", then
what's the problem? If you are essentially
married in the eyes of the community, then
why wouldn't you? I was under the (perhaps
mistakenly) impression that all women grew
up dreaming of their wedding. Was that not
important to you
personally?
A wedding and a marriage, not to mention
weddings versus marriage
licenses/contractual obligations, are
different monsters.
A contractual obligation between two
parties to be together changes the dynamic
of a relationship. I would rather someone
make a choice to be with me everyday than
be signed, sealed, and delivered into it.
lonestarguy
wrote:
Is there something wrong
with a "real" commitment to you? I could
ask you the opposite question. Why would
you commit to someone for life if they are
not willing to put their word on the line
for you? Just as a point of reference,
when in your relation with Mr. X did you
mutually decide that you would be together
for the long
haul?
This is very interesting. It's kind of
exactly what I meant: my word is a
"real" commitment.
You did not answer my question.
I do not need someone to be willing to put
their word on the line, because that is
all about money and material possessions.
That signature does not protect anyone's
heart.
We mutually decided this over the course
of time. It was fairly early on.
lonestarguy
wrote:
You can't deny the fact that
two people who are not married, but
committed to a long-term relationship, can
walk away any time they want with no
entanglements. In fact, is a long-term
unmarried relationship considered by both
partners as a pact for life or just until
one or the other decides they have fallen
out of love? Do you have the level of
interaction and commitment with each
other's family? Because when you marry,
you really do marry the family also.
Yes, I don't deny that.
I would not want someone who were not in
love with me to be forced to be with me
because of a contractual obligation. That
is no way for me to live.
That's my choice; it's not for everyone.
We have as high an interactional level
with one another's family as any married
couple.
lonestarguy
wrote:
lWhat I think futureshock is
saying is that a pregnancy changes
everything, especially the dynamics of a
relationship. Is there still a stigma for
a child born out of wedlock today? Is that
fair to the child, especially when he or
she grows up? Or, are the feelings of the
parents more important than that of the
child?
As far as you and your partner are
concerned, I would personally say that you
should be married for the reasons I
stated. But, knowing you now and assuming
your bf is just as mature, then I would
not think less of you if you didn't. I am
able to argue a point without forcing my
views on others.
I agree with futureshock that it does seem
like younger partners, without your level
of maturity, are becoming pregnant and
then forcing a decision to be made whether
they are ready or not.
And, finally, I would also be interested
in the statistics of couples in your
position.
Toodle-loo!
I really agree that if kids are involved,
partners should be married for numerous
reasons beneficial to their children.
I know it's gone off tack; I just want to
reiterate my original post on here:
Marriage does not automatically mean that
someone is a good parent. Any loon can
sign a document.
I hope all that made sense. I wrote it
really fast...