'Forced' to marry

[peezey 0]

This is what I don't get, and I know I've only tried to argue without insults here so far, but for me, this is what it comes down to, and no, it's not about anyone's opinion in particular:

Those who think marriage exhibits a deeper committment have been engaged in discussion about why or why not, but have not been called any names or been insulted to the effect of "you old-fashioned marrieds are conformists" for their belief.

While those who argue the opposite, that committment can be made, deeply, without marriage, have not only conceded that marriage is totally fine with them (some of them) but instead of being engaged in discussion they have been called hedonist and noncomittals and are called out on things like marriage vows and potentially getting a divorce right after getting married.

Ok, for what that was worth, which isn't much, the end.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

And in and of itself doesn't that prove by example that one doesn't have to be married to be committed?

What it proves is a loving, but unequal relationship. Gary wanted to marry, she didn't. I can't speak for Gary, he can do that for himself, but if you wanted to marry the one you loved, but they didn't want to marry you, would that not have an effect on you?

This is what I don't get, and I know I've only tried to argue without insults here so far, but for me, this is what it comes down to, and no, it's not about anyone's opinion in particular:

Those who think marriage exhibits a deeper committment have been engaged in discussion about why or why not, but have not been called any names or been insulted to the effect of "you old-fashioned marrieds are conformists" for their belief.

While those who argue the opposite, that committment can be made, deeply, without marriage, have not only conceded that marriage is totally fine with them (some of them) but instead of being engaged in discussion they have been called hedonist and noncomittals and are called out on things like marriage vows and potentially getting a divorce right after getting married.

Ok, for what that was worth, which isn't much, the end.

I haven't been called names?

[brnidokiegurl 0]

I know, I know leaving now, everything had been very peaceful for a longggggggggg time this afternoon, everyone stating difference of view, opinions, WHAT HAPPENED?

[Alex+R 0]

Nearly 40 pages based mostly around szsz. Just because most of us completely disagree with her does not mean we should keep going with this thread. Stop trying to convince her. Let her believe she's better than everyone else and stop giving her so much attention.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Nearly 40 pages based mostly around szsz. Just because most of us completely disagree with her does not mean we should keep going with this thread. Stop trying to convince her. Let her believe she's better than everyone else and stop giving her so much attention.

Understanding what I was saying in the first place would have been a good start. You never did get it, so you don't even know what you're arguing about. Those who couldn't figure out what this thread is about were right. Much ado about nothing.

[featherB 1]

I'm not 'complaining' about the need to marry for immigration purposes (but I would say that we probably wouldn't be getting married so soon were it not necessary in order to be together, and that neither of us would see any NEED to get married otherwise), so I probably don't qualify to answer this question. But I will, anyway. I'll try not to mess up the quotes.

I asked a question early on that only person answered, and that is, among those of you who are complaining about having to marry for immigration, do you plan to divorce once your marriage is no longer needed for immigration purposes?

Of course not.

Also, I'm curious as to whether you have informed your SO, friends and family that you find this marriage thing a pain and am only doing it as a sacrifice so you and your beloved can be together.

No. But they (family/friends) are well aware that we would not be marrying this quickly were it not required by USCIS in order for us to live together in the US. In fact, they're aware that we quite possibly wouldn't be marrying at all - not because we have anything against marriage, but because it's not necessary to us to have a marriage certificate and vows said in front of an imaginary being/government-approved officiant, in order to be completely committed to each other. And for the same reasons, I don't need to 'inform my SO' of anything - marrying him is not 'a pain', I'm more than happy to be marrying him - but I don't see that it adds any extra layer of commitment, or any proof of it, that wouldn't be there were we to simply cohabit.

[bostonparis 0]

Nearly 40 pages based mostly around szsz. Just because most of us completely disagree with her does not mean we should keep going with this thread. Stop trying to convince her. Let her believe she's better than everyone else and stop giving her so much attention.

Understanding what I was saying in the first place would have been a good start. You never did get it, so you don't even know what you're arguing about. Those who couldn't figure out what this thread is about were right. Much ado about nothing.

Yes, you are. However, I'm not sure why you can't concede that there are different opinions on this, and not one of them is right, and not one of them is wrong. You will respond saying something along the lines of, "I'm not the one arguing about this, I'm just stating my opinion." Your opinion is that everyone else's opinions are wrong.

I just don't get that. The reason I asked in the first place was because I was curious if people felt like they were getting married before the natural course of the relationship took them to marriage, even though they knew that they either would eventually get married, or would be fully committed, if immigration were not an issue.

So why do homosexuals have a "committment" ceremony because they are not allowed to have a legally binding marriage? Because they're committed!! Wheeeeeeeee!!

[rebeccajo 14]

And in and of itself doesn't that prove by example that one doesn't have to be married to be committed?

What it proves is a loving, but unequal relationship. Gary wanted to marry, she didn't. I can't speak for Gary, he can do that for himself, but if you wanted to marry the one you loved, but they didn't want to marry you, would that not have an effect on you?

I don't know. I guess it would depend on why I wanted the marriage and the other person didn't.

If I wanted to marry that person to publicly display my commitment to them and others, then it might make me feel cheated of an opportunity I wanted - an opportunity to show not only them but the whole world that they were the only one for me.

Or then again, if that symbol was unneccessary to my mate - if they respected me otherwise and loved me wholly and completely, I might feel the most loving thing I could do would be not ask them to conform to my ideal of the symbol of commitment.

[peezey 0]

And in and of itself doesn't that prove by example that one doesn't have to be married to be committed?

What it proves is a loving, but unequal relationship. Gary wanted to marry, she didn't. I can't speak for Gary, he can do that for himself, but if you wanted to marry the one you loved, but they didn't want to marry you, would that not have an effect on you?

This is what I don't get, and I know I've only tried to argue without insults here so far, but for me, this is what it comes down to, and no, it's not about anyone's opinion in particular:

Those who think marriage exhibits a deeper committment have been engaged in discussion about why or why not, but have not been called any names or been insulted to the effect of "you old-fashioned marrieds are conformists" for their belief.

While those who argue the opposite, that committment can be made, deeply, without marriage, have not only conceded that marriage is totally fine with them (some of them) but instead of being engaged in discussion they have been called hedonist and noncomittals and are called out on things like marriage vows and potentially getting a divorce right after getting married.

Ok, for what that was worth, which isn't much, the end.

I haven't been called names?

yes, you have, this has clearly gone downhill, however, you started with the hedonism and the noncommittal thing.

[garya505 2]

I think I just realized why szsz and gary get along so well

[ceriserose 1]

Nearly 40 pages based mostly around szsz. Just because most of us completely disagree with her does not mean we should keep going with this thread. Stop trying to convince her. Let her believe she's better than everyone else and stop giving her so much attention.

Understanding what I was saying in the first place would have been a good start. You never did get it, so you don't even know what you're arguing about. Those who couldn't figure out what this thread is about were right. Much ado about nothing.

Yes, you are. However, I'm not sure why you can't concede that there are different opinions on this, and not one of them is right, and not one of them is wrong. You will respond saying something along the lines of, "I'm not the one arguing about this, I'm just stating my opinion." Your opinion is that everyone else's opinions are wrong.

I just don't get that. The reason I asked in the first place was because I was curious if people felt like they were getting married before the natural course of the relationship took them to marriage, even though they knew that they either would eventually get married, or would be fully committed, if immigration were not an issue.

So why do homosexuals have a "committment" ceremony because they are not allowed to have a legally binding marriage? Because they're committed!! Wheeeeeeeee!!

I'm telling TracyTN that you're trying to take her title of "Instigator of the Post"...

[peezey 0]

I don't think anyone, szsz included, has to concede that any opinions are right or wrong. I do, however, disagree with certain argumentation tactics, ie, not-so-veiled insults.

ETA: debate means we don't agree, and I don't think it means trying to convince each other of anything.

Edited January 3, 2007 by peezey

[rebeccajo 14]

I can't believe it took me over an hour to catch up.....

Gary, I think you must be one hell of a guy. And bless your heart for what you went through.

szsz....no I'm not looking to divorce my husband. But had we been a same-continent couple, we might have dated longer before we married. But then again, we might not have. In all honesty, I can't give you a clear answer. We are a 40's something couple and feel like we know our own selves pretty well. It wasn't ever a question of whether either of us could be marriage material - that we could be faithful and committed. It was a question of whether we were good as marriage material TOGETHER.

[garya505 2]

Gary without being personal have YOU been married and divorced before?

No, but mine is a somewhat unusual case. My former SO was married before she met me, and she never wanted to get married again. I loved her, so I went along with that. She died after we were together 20 years. How's that for commitment without marriage?

Well, yeah, that's pretty freakin' awesome I think. Seriously.

And in and of itself doesn't that prove by example that one doesn't have to be married to be committed?

It only proves to me that in one case the couple didn't have to be married to be committed, but I believe it's the exception rather than the rule.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Nearly 40 pages based mostly around szsz. Just because most of us completely disagree with her does not mean we should keep going with this thread. Stop trying to convince her. Let her believe she's better than everyone else and stop giving her so much attention.

Understanding what I was saying in the first place would have been a good start. You never did get it, so you don't even know what you're arguing about. Those who couldn't figure out what this thread is about were right. Much ado about nothing.

Yes, you are. However, I'm not sure why you can't concede that there are different opinions on this, and not one of them is right, and not one of them is wrong. You will respond saying something along the lines of, "I'm not the one arguing about this, I'm just stating my opinion." Your opinion is that everyone else's opinions are wrong.

I just don't get that. The reason I asked in the first place was because I was curious if people felt like they were getting married before the natural course of the relationship took them to marriage, even though they knew that they either would eventually get married, or would be fully committed, if immigration were not an issue.

So why do homosexuals have a "committment" ceremony because they are not allowed to have a legally binding marriage? Because they're committed!! Wheeeeeeeee!!

I understand that there are many who con't deal with my views, so they insist that I concede. Sorry, I'm not a moral relativist, nor politically correct. I don't always run with the crowd.

Apples and oranges about homosexuals. They normally can't get married, we can. And where they can, many do.