'Forced' to marry

[brnidokiegurl 0]

COMMITMENT: The state of being bound emotionally or intellectually to a course of action (or consignment to a prison or mental hospital) which may fit before to much longer

MARRIAGE: Wedlock, legal union between man and woman as husband and wife,

so two people could be COMMITED to each other without Marriage as such--- right/wrong?

or

two people could be MARRIED without COMMITMENT (No meeting of the minds as such either emotionally or intellectually) right/wrong?

there is another one MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE - a marriage or joint undertaking arranged for political, economic, or social benefit rather than from personal attachment.

believe we probably all know of many cases of all

[Fandango 1,439]

As I said before, if calling someone "hon" is so ofensive to you that you can;t get over it, you need to get a life.

It would be nice if the only name calling you've done to me was "hon", but you're clearly the more intelligent one among us.

Not.

I thought you had to go?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

As far as I recall, you never claimed open-mindedness as such. However, I interpreted your "acquaintances who voted for John Kerry" fable as some sort of admonishment to be open-minded, talk to more people, move outside our own little world, and such. It is we who should be open-minded, then?

Unlike my friends in the example, I do talk to lots of different people. As a result, I was not surprised when Kerry lost.

However, that doesn't preclude me from having a specific point of view on any given subject. One cannot be open-minded about everything. I doubt that you are; why should I be?

So it is just we (the not yous of this thread) who are admonished to be more open-minded. Very well. I certainly do support your right to have strong convictions. It's just, in this case, yours is wrong. Your personal valuation of the symbol of marriage just isn't universal, so it can't be used as a gauge of other people's depth of committment to each other unless they acknowledge that they share that same valuation.

That is your opinion, and we already knew that. But it is no more universal than is mine. However, my opinion is what I use to gauge committment, and some of you reacted to it in such a negative manner.

Who am I? Why does my viewpoint matter so much that this thread has gown so long with the consternation against me? I am flattered that my views and my perceived manner have garnered much interest, but that this is the case says more about your perceptions of yourselves than it ever will say about me.

Edited January 3, 2007 by szsz

[garya505 2]

While it may be true that the personal valuation of marriage just isn't universal, it is still valued by the majority of people. And it's not just a symbol either, it's a long-standing institution that has stood the test of time.

So yes, in general the decision to marry can be used as a gauge of a couple's depth of committment to, and intent towards, each other. It's just common sense. As always, there are exceptions, but that doesn't change what is generally true.

[Fandango 1,439]

As far as I recall, you never claimed open-mindedness as such. However, I interpreted your "acquaintances who voted for John Kerry" fable as some sort of admonishment to be open-minded, talk to more people, move outside our own little world, and such. It is we who should be open-minded, then?

Unlike my friends in the example, I do talk to lots of different people. As a result, I was not surprised when Kerry lost.

However, that doesn't preclude me from having a specific point of view on any given subject. One cannot be open-minded about everything. I doubt that you are; why should I be?

So it is just we (the not yous of this thread) who are admonished to be more open-minded. Very well. I certainly do support your right to have strong convictions. It's just, in this case, yours is wrong. Your personal valuation of the symbol of marriage just isn't universal, so it can't be used as a gauge of other people's depth of committment to each other unless they acknowledge that they share that same valuation.

That is your opinion, and we already knew that. But it is no more universal than is mine. However, my opinion is what I use to gauge committment, and some of you reacted to it in such a negative manner.

Who am I? Why does my viewpoint matter so much that this thread has gown so long with the consternation against me? I am flattered that my views and my perceived manner have garnered much interest, but that this is the case says more about your perceptions of yourselves than it ever will say about me.

Don't be flattered...you were just the VJ freakshow for the past few days....kinda like having to slow down to see the car wreck...it's called morbid fascination

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Your personal valuation of the symbol of marriage just isn't universal, so it can't be used as a gauge of other people's depth of committment to each other unless they acknowledge that they share that same valuation.

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!

why am i reminded of that movie with meg ryan?

Who am I? Why does my viewpoint matter so much that this thread has gown so long with the consternation against me? I am flattered that my views and my perceived manner have garnered much interest, but that this is the case says more about your perceptions of yourselves than it ever will say about me.

you're the newbie. this is the welcome wagon

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

As far as I recall, you never claimed open-mindedness as such. However, I interpreted your "acquaintances who voted for John Kerry" fable as some sort of admonishment to be open-minded, talk to more people, move outside our own little world, and such. It is we who should be open-minded, then?

Unlike my friends in the example, I do talk to lots of different people. As a result, I was not surprised when Kerry lost.

However, that doesn't preclude me from having a specific point of view on any given subject. One cannot be open-minded about everything. I doubt that you are; why should I be?

So it is just we (the not yous of this thread) who are admonished to be more open-minded. Very well. I certainly do support your right to have strong convictions. It's just, in this case, yours is wrong. Your personal valuation of the symbol of marriage just isn't universal, so it can't be used as a gauge of other people's depth of committment to each other unless they acknowledge that they share that same valuation.

That is your opinion, and we already knew that. But it is no more universal than is mine. However, my opinion is what I use to gauge committment, and some of you reacted to it in such a negative manner.

Who am I? Why does my viewpoint matter so much that this thread has gown so long with the consternation against me? I am flattered that my views and my perceived manner have garnered much interest, but that this is the case says more about your perceptions of yourselves than it ever will say about me.

Don't be flattered...you were just the VJ freakshow for the past few days....kinda like having to slow down to see the car wreck...it's called morbid fascination

Last warning on attacks before thread is closed. Lets try and be more friendly.

[Fandango 1,439]

As far as I recall, you never claimed open-mindedness as such. However, I interpreted your "acquaintances who voted for John Kerry" fable as some sort of admonishment to be open-minded, talk to more people, move outside our own little world, and such. It is we who should be open-minded, then?

Unlike my friends in the example, I do talk to lots of different people. As a result, I was not surprised when Kerry lost.

However, that doesn't preclude me from having a specific point of view on any given subject. One cannot be open-minded about everything. I doubt that you are; why should I be?

So it is just we (the not yous of this thread) who are admonished to be more open-minded. Very well. I certainly do support your right to have strong convictions. It's just, in this case, yours is wrong. Your personal valuation of the symbol of marriage just isn't universal, so it can't be used as a gauge of other people's depth of committment to each other unless they acknowledge that they share that same valuation.

That is your opinion, and we already knew that. But it is no more universal than is mine. However, my opinion is what I use to gauge committment, and some of you reacted to it in such a negative manner.

Who am I? Why does my viewpoint matter so much that this thread has gown so long with the consternation against me? I am flattered that my views and my perceived manner have garnered much interest, but that this is the case says more about your perceptions of yourselves than it ever will say about me.

Don't be flattered...you were just the VJ freakshow for the past few days....kinda like having to slow down to see the car wreck...it's called morbid fascination

Last warning on attacks before thread is closed. Lets try and be more friendly.

Out of all the posts here, I'm the only one to get singled out? ok then

[Bosco 1]

Hmmm, it seems some people get really defensive about their hesitancy about marriage.

Perhaps this shows how strongly they DO feel about their committments and loved ones.

[garya505 2]

COMMITMENT: The state of being bound emotionally or intellectually to a course of action (or consignment to a prison or mental hospital) which may fit before to much longer

MARRIAGE: Wedlock, legal union between man and woman as husband and wife,

so two people could be COMMITED to each other without Marriage as such--- right/wrong?

or

two people could be MARRIED without COMMITMENT (No meeting of the minds as such either emotionally or intellectually) right/wrong?

there is another one MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE - a marriage or joint undertaking arranged for political, economic, or social benefit rather than from personal attachment.

believe we probably all know of many cases of all

Yes all of these are possible and they do happen, but they are the exception not the usual case. The truth is that most people demonstrate their commitment through marriage, and hesitancy towards marriage shows an uncertainty about commitment.

[Jenn! 918]

It's as if you're wearing red socks and someone is insisting that it's because you are rebelling against all the white-socked conformists. And no matter how many times you say that you're not rebelling against anything, you just happen to like red socks, they just keep on insisting that you are rebelling as if somehow they know you better than you know you.

[Fandango 1,439]

COMMITMENT: The state of being bound emotionally or intellectually to a course of action (or consignment to a prison or mental hospital) which may fit before to much longer

MARRIAGE: Wedlock, legal union between man and woman as husband and wife,

so two people could be COMMITED to each other without Marriage as such--- right/wrong?

or

two people could be MARRIED without COMMITMENT (No meeting of the minds as such either emotionally or intellectually) right/wrong?

there is another one MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE - a marriage or joint undertaking arranged for political, economic, or social benefit rather than from personal attachment.

believe we probably all know of many cases of all

Yes all of these are possible and they do happen, but they are the exception not the usual case. The truth is that most people demonstrate their commitment through marriage, and hesitancy towards marriage shows an uncertainty about commitment.

says who?

Seriously, with the divorce rates as high as they are, I wouldn't be putting the be-all end-all sign of commitment as Marriage.

[*julez* 124]

Your personal valuation of the symbol of marriage just isn't universal, so it can't be used as a gauge of other people's depth of committment to each other unless they acknowledge that they share that same valuation.

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!

Heishe certainly rocks!!! Couldn't have said it better myself!

[brnidokiegurl 0]

I think it just shows everyone has their own opinion of both words as they see fit to use for themselves INDIVIDUALITY distinguishes one person or thing from others

[Fandango 1,439]

I think everyone needs to understand that there is NO UNIVERSAL TRUTH when it comes to what commitment is to each individual.