|
NookieNotes -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/8/2015 5:34:35 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crumpets
quote:
ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
That part of her marriage was dead, but they had other reasons to stay together and she didn't want him to be in the position of either forgoing sex entirely or resorting to cheating.
Only tangentially related, I had a long discussion with a half dozen very intelligent people over lunch yesterday, where I was appalled at the bigotry of the gay rights activists who feel that a marriage has nothing to do with religion; a marriage has nothing to do with morals; a marriage has nothing to do with ensuring long-term financial support; a marriage has nothing to do with, heaven forbid, love. And, certainly, a marriage has nothing to do with families.
No. To their bigoted gay-rights view, a marriage is to obtain the same RIGHTs as married heterosexual people enjoy.
What shocked me wasn't that these gay-rights activists discriminated against all other rationales for marriage; what shocked me was how closed-minded their view was.
My concept of marriage is far more open minded and non-discriminatory, as it excludes nobody and doesn't need to destroy anyone's current meaning, in order to fulfill the needs of everyone.
But, the gay-rights activists would have none of these open-minded ideals; they would only accept a supremely narrow bigoted definition of marriage that discriminates against all others, yet, conveniently, includes theirs.
Marriage for gay people is about getting the same rights.
Perhaps you can open your own mind, because to me, it is incredibly closed. You are not accepting their point of view, you are judging it is wrong and narrow-minded. You are suggesting their version of marriage is out to destroy others' current meaning.
Let's take a look at the fact that gays have NOT be allowed to legally marry, and the things you think are part of marriage:
religion: Gays have had or not had religion without marriage for the history of time.
morals: Gays have had or not had morals without marriage for the history of time.
long-term financial support: Gays have had or not had long-term financial support without marriage for the history of time.
love: Gays have had or not had love without marriage for the history of time.
families: Gays have had or not had families without marriage for the history of time.
What they have NOT HAD AT ALL is equal rights.
And marriage gives those to them. In fact, let's look at non-gay humans:
religion: Many people have religion without being married.
morals: Many people have morals without being married.
long-term financial support: Many people have morals without being married.
love: Many people have love without being married.
families: SOOOO many people have families without being married.
And, as another point, taken from many dictionaries:
mar·riage
ˈmerij/
noun
1. the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.
2. the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
3. the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
4. The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship
So, as you can see, while these definitions speak of legality and agreements/states, they do NOT speak of love, morality, religion, families, or long-term support.
You are the one trying to force your own erroneous assumptions onto others, and getting indignant that they don't support your false view of the world.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
he doesn't think that the sorry state of their sex life has anything to do him
I can only guess at the figures, but, if you took a million marriages, and if this was the sorry state of affairs in a statistically meaningfully number of them, then, it would be arguably true - that the sorry state of affairs of "that" marriage probably had absolutely nothing to do with "him" (or with "her").
However, if his marriage was one out of a million, then, indeed, it would then be a tenable argument that there was something either about "him" or about "her" that brought them to this state.
The fact that there are over 30 million men on AM alone, implies the former, and not the latter.
So, to use your logic in another area, because there are millions of fat people, it has nothing to do with "him" or "her," since, obviously, individuals aren't to blame when there are such numbers. It's not how the people eat or think. It's something else, to absolve them of personal guilt.
Your logic is so incredibly flawed.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tj444
quote:
ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
quote:
ORIGINAL: tj444
married or not, "romantic" to me is seeing two old farts (in their 70's, 80's, 90's) holding hands as they walk down the street and still looking at each other with love in their eyes.. For some reason that used to exist, where couples thought of the other first, not themselves first, but society has changed, people have become narcissistic and self-absorbed carrying around their selfie stick and cell and tweeting about their superficial experiences.. when people are like that, of course life-long monogamy isnt realistic.. heck, 1 week of monogamy could be asking too much!
There's a lot of assumptions in this paragraph.
1. That older couple may be just dating. Or hooking up. The largest growing population of STIs is in the senior crowd, as more people are outliving their spouse and still enjoying dating and romping in the sack.
2. It used to be that getting a divorce was MUCH MUCH harder. so, people stayed married. Divorce used to require that you dragged your spouse through the mud and prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they were a despicable human being who deserved public shame and dishonor. Today, people who are unhappy because of their marriages divorce, so are no longer married. 60 years ago, people who were miserable in their marriage stayed married.
3. You are assuming love. That was not always (or even more often) the case. It was practicality, legality, and often, the inability to function without each other, eventually. Especially for the woman, who would get no alimony, no child support, had to leave without job prospects or an education, etc.
of course I am making some assumptions, in some/many cases my assumptions are correct, in other cases maybe not but then if i see such a couple walking in the park i am not gonna go up to them and ask them if they are really in love/been married for decades or if they are just hooking up!!!! [8|]
Not that they are "old farts" but I think Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick have that kinda romantic long term relationship.. yes, i am making certain assumptions there too, such as that they really are in love and tweeting about being happily married for 27 years isnt just a PR campaign..
I'm not implying you should ask. Nor am I saying that thinking long-term marriages/relationships are amazing is a bad thing.
I'm just saying that projection is one of those things that can cause poor logic.
|
|
|
|
