'Forced' to marry

[featherB 1]

wow sorry (or not) missed all of this, let me take about a hour and read up then I will maybe have an opinion about wether i would get married if immigration were not involved, personally i think had he lived here close by would just be living together in sin.

is that what this thread was about? i only read the last 5 pages or so

my answer: yes, we would have gotten married regardless of immigration. don't believe in living in sin.

no, this thread turned into the notion that if you don't believe in marriage you are afraid of commitment. Even if you are married or are getting married and sponsoring your immigrant fiance(e). Even though you do everything but bend over for Uncle Sam's inspection and you financially vouch for that person for God knows how long....according to some, you're commitment-phobic.

Dave and I would have still gotten married as well, but we would have lived together first all the same even if he was a USC.

This is Lisa's summary of what happened here. Mine is that I dared to state that an adversity to marriage indicates a lesser commitment on that person's part. Doing so has made me a mockery for the rabids here. One is not allowed to have an opinion that disagrees with the hedonists among us or they will be subjected to character assasination not t mention some very silly analogies.

After following this thread from the start, and seeing this word over and over again, I'm going to say it. I don't think "adversity" is the word you're looking for. And if it is, that sentence makes no sense at all. You can't have an "adversity to marriage". An aversion to marriage, on the other hand...

As for whether going through the immigration process and marrying in order to be together when you might not otherwise have considered marrying so soon, if at all, indicates lack of commitment... that's just ridiculous. But I believe that's been pointed out more eloquently than I could do it, by others, 'til they're blue in the face.

[brnidokiegurl 0]

Sure glad wasn't me actually didnt think it was...may need your help getting thru Casa one of the days so i can enter into this marriage, that they are dictating when i can do.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

After following this thread from the start, and seeing this word over and over again, I'm going to say it. I don't think "adversity" is the word you're looking for. And if it is, that sentence makes no sense at all. You can't have an "adversity to marriage". An aversion to marriage, on the other hand...

As for whether going through the immigration process and marrying in order to be together when you might not otherwise have considered marrying so soon, if at all, indicates lack of commitment... that's just ridiculous. But I believe that's been pointed out more eloquently than I could do it, by others, 'til they're blue in the face.

You're correct about the semantics. As for the rest, there have been plenty of comments about how so and so would not hae married at all or as soon as they did except for immigration. My point is that no one is being forced to do anything. They had a choice to make and they made it. I've heard lots of "shoulds", but that is the reality. My opinion is blaming someone else for the situation your in is a cop out. Own up to your choice and make the commitment of marriage or not.

[Jenn! 918]

After following this thread from the start, and seeing this word over and over again, I'm going to say it. I don't think "adversity" is the word you're looking for. And if it is, that sentence makes no sense at all. You can't have an "adversity to marriage". An aversion to marriage, on the other hand...

As for whether going through the immigration process and marrying in order to be together when you might not otherwise have considered marrying so soon, if at all, indicates lack of commitment... that's just ridiculous. But I believe that's been pointed out more eloquently than I could do it, by others, 'til they're blue in the face.

You're correct about the semantics. As for the rest, there have been plenty of comments about how so and so would not hae married at all or as soon as they did except for immigration. My point is that no one is being forced to do anything. They had a choice to make and they made it. I've heard lots of "shoulds", but that is the reality. My opinion is blaming someone else for the situation your in is a cop out. Own up to your choice and make the commitment of marriage or not.

I don't think anyone has argued against the point you just made.

I feel like I've been reading a different thread than you have.

[rebeccajo 14]

No.

It wasn't 'semantics'.

It was a malapropism.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No.

It wasn't 'semantics'.

It was a malapropism.

It got the point across, obviously.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

To answer the question posed:

No, we didn't feel "forced" to marry because of immigration, nor to marry "sooner" than we would have otherwise.

[Fandango 1,440]

wow sorry (or not) missed all of this, let me take about a hour and read up then I will maybe have an opinion about wether i would get married if immigration were not involved, personally i think had he lived here close by would just be living together in sin.

is that what this thread was about? i only read the last 5 pages or so

my answer: yes, we would have gotten married regardless of immigration. don't believe in living in sin.

no, this thread turned into the notion that if you don't believe in marriage you are afraid of commitment. Even if you are married or are getting married and sponsoring your immigrant fiance(e). Even though you do everything but bend over for Uncle Sam's inspection and you financially vouch for that person for God knows how long....according to some, you're commitment-phobic.

Dave and I would have still gotten married as well, but we would have lived together first all the same even if he was a USC.

This is Lisa's summary of what happened here. Mine is that I dared to state that an adversity to marriage indicates a lesser commitment on that person's part. Doing so has made me a mockery for the rabids here. One is not allowed to have an opinion that disagrees with the hedonists among us or they will be subjected to character assasination not t mention some very silly analogies.

Stating your opinion has NOT made you a mockery. Acting like an azzhole has.

[heishe 2]

After following this thread from the start, and seeing this word over and over again, I'm going to say it. I don't think "adversity" is the word you're looking for. And if it is, that sentence makes no sense at all. You can't have an "adversity to marriage". An aversion to marriage, on the other hand...

As for whether going through the immigration process and marrying in order to be together when you might not otherwise have considered marrying so soon, if at all, indicates lack of commitment... that's just ridiculous. But I believe that's been pointed out more eloquently than I could do it, by others, 'til they're blue in the face.

You're correct about the semantics. As for the rest, there have been plenty of comments about how so and so would not hae married at all or as soon as they did except for immigration. My point is that no one is being forced to do anything. They had a choice to make and they made it. I've heard lots of "shoulds", but that is the reality. My opinion is blaming someone else for the situation your in is a cop out. Own up to your choice and make the commitment of marriage or not.

You're right, nobody is actually forced (hopefully) to get married. You have apparently chosen to be married because marriage represents, to you, an ultimate in personal committment. Other people are choosing to get married because, although they may have other conceptions of what properly symbolizes ultimate personal committment and marriage is to them a superfluous formality, it is a requirement of this immigration process.

I think what is irritating about your contribution to this thread is not the fact that you view marriage as such an important symbol, but that you seem to think everyone else here secretly or subconsciously subscribes to this same view, so if they express ambivalence towards marriage it means they've got reservations about the depth of their personal committment to the relationship, when the likely reality is that, although they may value long term committment and feel just as deeply committed to their partners as you do, they simply don't attach the same symbolic importance to marriage.

[*julez* 124]

No.

It wasn't 'semantics'.

It was a malapropism.

I am so happy you pointed that out!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I am not the only person who was irritating to someone else, nor do I take resonsibility for your over reactions to my dissenting point of view. The fact is, azzholes are a dime a dozen on this thread. The repeated inability by some to read and/or discuss a subject with intelligence instead of insult and the pleasure they take in that made most of this thread just a few clowns short of a circus.

Edited January 3, 2007 by szsz

[Fandango 1,440]

I am not the only person who was irritating to someone else, nor do I take resonsibility for your over reactions to my dissenting point of view. The fact is, azzholes are a dime a dozen on this thread. The repeated inability by some to read and/or discuss a subject with intelligence instead of insult and the pleasure they take in that made most of this thread just a few clowns short of a circus.

Martyr, party of one, your table is ready.....

[Sofiyya 1,687]

When you can't debate, mock.

[Fandango 1,440]

When you can't debate, mock.

that's the problem...this is NOT a debate. No one's trying to get ppl to switch opinions...well, no one except you.

And as far as the mocking...omG...you need to go back and re-read this thread and all your replies and hang your head in shame for acting like such an unruly child incapable of respecting other people.

I used to think you were a very smart woman, SZ. I used to marvel at how you'd put a logical and compelling post together in the MENA forum & really think 'wow what a well spoken and capable woman'. In this thread, you have acted in a manner which tarnishes everything I felt. Not that you should cry or anything like that...I mean who am I to you? but at the same time, I am completely gobsmacked at how you have lost your rag and morphed into this childish, disrespectful, arrogant person who's selectively blind and apparantly illiterate to anything which you don't agree with. People...including me...have repeatedly expressed our opinions and have tried to appeal to your adult side to have a rational discussion, yet you just arent' interested & would rather play this 'poor persecuted me' routine who lashes out at pretty much everyone.

It's sad.

But wildly entertaining ...so please do continue.

Edited January 3, 2007 by LisaD

[heishe 2]

I am not the only person who was irritating to someone else, nor do I take resonsibility for your over reactions to my dissenting point of view. The fact is, azzholes are a dime a dozen on this thread. The repeated inability by some to read and/or discuss a subject with intelligence instead of insult and the pleasure they take in that made most of this thread just a few clowns short of a circus.

Huh, so you really did nothing wrong? You weren't over-aggressive or anything? Not even a little bit obtuse, mm? Are everyone's objections just totally irrational? Why does everyone keep picking on you? You're just trying to be nice and open-minded!