Is getting married becoming a 'technicality'?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

18 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

Oh, with the bendy straws? I've seen them. Being consumed on the street. I'll try (and likely fail) not to judge, but Maven circa 2009 must be very disappointed in this lowering of standards.

I do pour them into glasses, I'm not a heathen.

 

Maven circa 2009 would have been too drunk to care much at the time, pretty sure she was drinking Michelob Ultra and chainsmoking Marlboro Lights as she dealt with infidelity in her marriage. As the Smiths said, "I can smile about it now / But at the time it was terrible." I have read what you have written elsewhere, Boris, about infidelity. I tend to side with you. I know for some it is possible to recover from an affair, but for me, I learned that I am not one of those people. My non-fiance knows where I stand on this -- if he even thinks about cheating, he needs to be prepared that there will no longer be an "us." And as terrifying as the thought of my life without him is, I would rather retain my dignity and be alone than be thrust back into the uncertainty and lies and breach of trust that accompany an affair. 

 

For my part, I once unwittingly took part in an affair. I had no idea that the man I was seeing was married until I did a deeper Google search on him. He told me he was in an "open relationship" (which younger maven was okay with, but not now) and it was a complete lie. I had spent weeks having a wonderful online correspondence with him before we met, and the chemistry was unstoppable. I adored him. We went out for dinner to lovely little restaurants and made out in his car like teenagers. This went on for a few months, and then I figured it out. Terrible.  I felt like a cad. I didn't reach out to his wife, but part of me wishes I had. He broke up with her about two months after I told him to sling his hook, saying he needed to express himself more fully (i.e. pick up chicks on OKCupid). He told her ONE DAY after his wife told him she had stage 2 breast cancer. (I know all this because he set his Facebook page to public, the moron.) If I'd told her, maybe she could have been the one to tell him to naff off. 

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

5 hours ago, Boris Farage said:

 

It's madness to me, that somebody would have a long distance relationship with somebody in another country, fly off to meet them once for a week, and then return to start filing paperwork for their "fiancee." Complete madness, especially for these high fraud countries.

 

*shrugs*  Basically what we did.

 

Absolute madness, in my opinion, to waste time in monogamy unless you're gonna put a ring on it. If there is such an issue with fraud, sponsoring parties should be fined for not vetting their spouses appropriately.

 

 

Then again, we're poly so it isn't a locked into one person forever thing.  I'm just wondering when the government is going to start recognizing that as something official.

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2019 by N-o-l-a

[Boiler 44,943]

Not vetting would most unlikely meet any definition of fraud in any circumstances.

 

I suppose the current system implies there has been some vetting, however the requirements seem very low. And even then are bitterly complained about.

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

7 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Not vetting would most unlikely meet any definition of fraud in any circumstances.

 

I suppose the current system implies there has been some vetting, however the requirements seem very low. And even then are bitterly complained about.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to a bond of sorts that is forfeited if divorce occurs for any reason before 10 years.  I know that will never fly.

[Boris Farage 353]

On 8/23/2019 at 8:47 PM, N-o-l-a said:

Then again, we're poly so it isn't a locked into one person forever thing.  I'm just wondering when the government is going to start recognizing that as something official.

Never, one hopes.

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

3 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

Never, one hopes.

 

Why not? Does it hurt you in some way?

[Boris Farage 353]

1 minute ago, N-o-l-a said:

 

Why not? Does it hurt you in some way?

I'm not practicing religious, but even I understand the need for the sanctity of marriage. If you want to flaunt that, it's your business. I just don't think the government should have to support or encourage it.

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

1 hour ago, Boris Farage said:

I'm not practicing religious, but even I understand the need for the sanctity of marriage. If you want to flaunt that, it's your business. I just don't think the government should have to support or encourage it.

 

I am a practicing religious person, and my religion does allow for a variety of expressions of love between consenting adults. Sanctioned, condoned, and even celebrated.

 

There was a time before DNA testing, during which an exclusive marriage provided insecure males assurances that their bloodline was intact. Now, it is just personal preference of people in a relationship that should matter. Either the government is in the business of making it a legal transaction or not. It doesn't get to pick and chose what is valid or not when it comes to consenting adults.

[Boris Farage 353]

1 hour ago, N-o-l-a said:

 

I am a practicing religious person, and my religion does allow for a variety of expressions of love between consenting adults. Sanctioned, condoned, and even celebrated.

 

There was a time before DNA testing, during which an exclusive marriage provided insecure males assurances that their bloodline was intact. Now, it is just personal preference of people in a relationship that should matter. Either the government is in the business of making it a legal transaction or not. It doesn't get to pick and chose what is valid or not when it comes to consenting adults.

Fortunately for me, your religion has no sway over either myself or the government.

 

I'm not asking for the government to pick and choose, far from it. I'm asking them to not use my tax dollars to re-define marriage, including not allowing visas for non-traditional marriages. It's nothing personal against you. I do wish you would take your marriage in a more serious, more traditional way, but it's none of my business. But what is done with my tax dollars is my business.

[lady3jane 39]

On 8/24/2019 at 3:23 AM, Boris Farage said:

There are of course bad apples in western countries, but if you're rooting around in Moscow or Manila, your odds of landing a scammer go up substantially. And honestly, don't get me started on these men who could be my father or grandfather, shopping around for some bride who could be their daughter. Dear God man, do you really think that pretty little Asian girl wants to cuddle up to your wrinkly almost-corpse every night? I digress.

I am really hoping you are in tip top shape and at the peak of your reproductive fitness, otherwise a bit too rich, don't you think?

 

Then, talking about your "tax dollars" and whatnot. So you are sweating  your precious  tax money funding untraditional marriages, which you of course mean gay marriages not just poly-amorous ones, but somehow you don't care as much when the said money sponsors poorly justified wars.  By traditional marriage what do you mean? You mean those with men having affairs with  their secretaries and personal assistants,  women lately doing the same with their personal trainers or worse, their son's high school friends? You've  either never been to an  affluent American suburb, or just  here for ideological panhandling.  I thought so, too. 

 

We are a monogamous couple, so hold up  before you come to yet another poorly formed judgment,  it makes sense when you are straight for various reasons, but it never once occurred to me to pass judgment over those who practice other forms of union. "Gamy" comes from gamos, meaning union, nothing more. If you are so into flaunting Latin, here you go. 

 

Immigration offices run with fees immigrants pay not with federal money. So you can keep your pocket change and your "opinions". Maybe it's time to lay off that scotch for a while, I heard it does wonders to one's mental clarity.  By the way, you can't have the cake and eat it, too. You are lucky.  Now England is a local country for local people. You can always kindly make your way back if the US laws are  too progressive for you. 

 

 

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

On 8/23/2019 at 8:48 PM, Boris Farage said:

Fair enough. My opinion stands on some of these disgraceful age differences, but I have edited my post so as to be less confrontational.

I'm curious as to your definition of "disgraceful age difference"?

[Boris Farage 353]

9 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

I'm curious as to your definition of "disgraceful age difference"?

Like porn, I think one knows it when one sees it.

[Boris Farage 353]

19 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

I'm curious as to your definition of "disgraceful age difference"?

To clarify, I think the litmus test is this: When I see the couple together, does it invoke disgust? If so, then it's probably a "disgraceful" age difference. Hope that helps.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Boris Farage said:

To clarify, I think the litmus test is this: When I see the couple together, does it invoke disgust? If so, then it's probably a "disgraceful" age difference. Hope that helps.

Not at all.  Let's throw some numbers at it.

 

35/20?

60/40?

52/34?

50/20?

[Boris Farage 353]

39 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Not at all.  Let's throw some numbers at it.

 

35/20?

60/40?

52/34?

50/20?

How about: if one's wife looks like one's daughter, it's not a particularly seemly look.

 

I do confess, I have on occasion considered trawling the UCLA sorority houses in search of just-this-side-of-child bride material. The difference there would only be around fifteen years give or take, but I'm in good shape and have good genes. I generally go for a female closer to my own age, but I can't deny the allure of an impressionable young coed.