Languish.org

Too much Languish marriage speak. What's your opinion on the whole business? Intention to marry does not require a current willing participant.

Substitute "civil partnership" for marriage where appropriate.

I believe everyone should get married once and should utterly believe it will be forever but realistically expect it's 50/50 that will be the case.

I also agree with Dr Johnson that "a second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience."

Currently married.   :)

If the Supreme Court of Canada decides in favour of Lola, I'll be married by force by the State. Does that count?

Quote from: Brazen on September 27, 2011, 08:29:40 AM
Too much Languish marriage speak. What's your opinion on the whole business?

You missed the "Currently married, would never marry again" option.

Quote from: ulmont on September 27, 2011, 08:39:10 AM
You missed the "Currently married, would never marry again" option.

File under "That's your own stupid fault" :P

Never married and undecided. i have no strong feeling one way or another. if it happens it happens.

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 08:47:03 AM
Never married and undecided. i have no strong feeling one way or another. if it happens it happens.

Marriage isn't usually the sort of thing that happens to you without your input.  ;)

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 08:51:04 AM

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 08:47:03 AM
Never married and undecided. i have no strong feeling one way or another. if it happens it happens.

Marriage isn't usually the sort of thing that happens to you without your input.  ;)

Life after marriage, on the other hand...  :hmm:

Not married, no intention of doing so but like Drakken I might be shotgun married by the SoC.

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 08:51:04 AM

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 08:47:03 AM
Never married and undecided. i have no strong feeling one way or another. if it happens it happens.

Marriage isn't usually the sort of thing that happens to you without your input.  ;)

Shotgun wedding! :contract: :P

Married.

L.

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 08:52:06 AM

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 08:51:04 AM

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 08:47:03 AM
Never married and undecided. i have no strong feeling one way or another. if it happens it happens.

Marriage isn't usually the sort of thing that happens to you without your input.  ;)

Shotgun wedding! :contract: :P

Among your kind, this is "usual"?  :hmm:


:P

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 08:54:51 AM

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 08:52:06 AM

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 08:51:04 AM

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 08:47:03 AM
Never married and undecided. i have no strong feeling one way or another. if it happens it happens.

Marriage isn't usually the sort of thing that happens to you without your input.  ;)

Shotgun wedding! :contract: :P

Among your kind, this is "usual"?  :hmm:


:P

Well he is Portuguese...

S'il te plait explique-moi ce "Lola" ci.

Wow, you're all so married. When I joined this forum, you were all, like, 14 or something.

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 08:54:51 AM

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 08:52:06 AM

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 08:51:04 AM

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 08:47:03 AM
Never married and undecided. i have no strong feeling one way or another. if it happens it happens.

Marriage isn't usually the sort of thing that happens to you without your input.  ;)

Shotgun wedding! :contract: :P

Among your kind, this is "usual"?  :hmm:


:P

Actually, yes :D. Portuguese people have the propensity to put the cart before the horse as it were. But i have a back up plan. If the need arises i plan on moving to Mexico and changing my name to Paco. Fool proof!

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 27, 2011, 08:52:00 AM
Not married, no intention of doing so but like Drakken I might be shotgun married by the SoC.

Any particular reason why not?  Not even for tax reasons or whatever?

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 08:57:09 AM
Actually, yes :D. Portuguese people have the propensity to put the cart before the horse as it were. But i have a back up plan. If the need arises i plan on moving to Mexico and changing my name to Paco. Fool proof!

You should go to Brazil.  Better parties.

Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2011, 08:59:59 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 27, 2011, 08:52:00 AM
Not married, no intention of doing so but like Drakken I might be shotgun married by the SoC.

Any particular reason why not?  Not even for tax reasons or whatever?

I am what the Quebec calls, a De Facto Union. For Tax purposes, it's the same as been married. The big differences have to do with what happens at separation/death.

There is no need for me to get married. I just see it as an expense of thousands of dollars that I could use for other stuff, like, buying an house.

Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2011, 09:01:26 AM

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 08:57:09 AM
Actually, yes :D. Portuguese people have the propensity to put the cart before the horse as it were. But i have a back up plan. If the need arises i plan on moving to Mexico and changing my name to Paco. Fool proof!

You should go to Brazil.  Better parties.

Mexico is easier to enter without a passprt (no paper trail!) and until recently less likely to kill me.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 27, 2011, 09:03:13 AM

Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2011, 08:59:59 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 27, 2011, 08:52:00 AM
Not married, no intention of doing so but like Drakken I might be shotgun married by the SoC.

Any particular reason why not?  Not even for tax reasons or whatever?

I am what the Quebec calls, a De Facto Union. For Tax purposes, it's the same as been married. The big differences have to do with what happens at separation/death.

There is no need for me to get married. I just see it as an expense of thousands of dollars that I could use for other stuff, like, buying an house.

Could just di the city hall marriage thing. No giant party.

My friend did the giant party thing, what a waste of cash. Of course it wasn't her cash, but still - cost well over $100K. I'd rather have the money ...

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 09:05:10 AM
Mexico is easier to enter without a passprt (no paper trail!) and until recently less likely to kill me.

There are still good places in Mexico. The violence is mostly in certain areas.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 27, 2011, 09:03:13 AM
I am what the Quebec calls, a De Facto Union. For Tax purposes, it's the same as been married. The big differences have to do with what happens at separation/death.

There is no need for me to get married. I just see it as an expense of thousands of dollars that I could use for other stuff, like, buying an house.

I was talking about the legal thing not the party.

Never married.  Will never marry.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 27, 2011, 08:52:00 AM
Not married, no intention of doing so but like Drakken I might be shotgun married by the SoC.

What's this all about?

Oh and, married and happy about it.

Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2011, 09:08:31 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 27, 2011, 09:03:13 AM
I am what the Quebec calls, a De Facto Union. For Tax purposes, it's the same as been married. The big differences have to do with what happens at separation/death.

There is no need for me to get married. I just see it as an expense of thousands of dollars that I could use for other stuff, like, buying an house.

I was talking about the legal thing not the party.

I don't know why I would want to do that without having the party.

Quote from: Jacob on September 27, 2011, 09:23:02 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 27, 2011, 08:52:00 AM
Not married, no intention of doing so but like Drakken I might be shotgun married by the SoC.

What's this all about?

Basically De Facto spouses aren't giving the same protections in Quebec that they get in Common Law jurisdiction. There's a case before the SoC trying to change that, usually call Eric vs Lola (really Guy Laliberté vs one of his ex, a brazilian hottie).

Oh, I don't know. My marriage ended up costing me all my money (thankfully not a lot), so if I do remarry it will be to reverse that process.

Quote from: PDH on September 27, 2011, 09:36:48 AM
Oh, I don't know. My marriage ended up costing me all my money (thankfully not a lot), so if I do remarry it will be to reverse that process.

:D

I was married, then divorced.  Luckily we were young and poor enough that it didn't really cost me anything besides some bath towels and silverware.

Five years later we got back together, but didn't re-marry.  Shockingly it didn't work out that time either.  Now I am single but the thought of dating is no longer revolting, not likely to remarry but who knows.

Both of the first two options.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 27, 2011, 10:00:30 AM
Both of the first two options.

:lol:

Keep the faith!

Hm.  Married about 9 1/2 years now. 

Never married, but S and I are going to as soon as we can afford to do something nicer than two witnesses at city hall.

You can't fight city hall.

Never married, absolutely no plans to marry though if I'm with a girl who really wants to I guess I might. Though I really won't be happy if she insists on a big fancy party for it. In return anal shall be demanded. And more.

Quote from: Tyr on September 27, 2011, 11:18:22 AM
Never married, absolutely no plans to marry though if I'm with a girl who really wants to I guess I might. Though I really won't be happy if she insists on a big fancy party for it. In return anal shall be demanded. And more.

Thread winner.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 27, 2011, 10:37:09 AM
Never married, but S and I are going to as soon as we can afford to do something nicer than two witnesses at city hall.

Why?

Use you money for stuff that matters, like a nice place to live.

I've been married since before you all met me. 21 years old.

You have to be really really lucky for that to work out.

Reality TV has corrupted our youth. :mad:

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 27, 2011, 11:26:58 AM
I've been married since before you all met me. 21 years old.

You have to be really really lucky for that to work out.

I got married at 23. :hug:

Failed poll. where is the never married, but open to it with the right person?

Quote from: Caliga on September 27, 2011, 11:28:56 AM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 27, 2011, 11:26:58 AM
I've been married since before you all met me. 21 years old.

You have to be really really lucky for that to work out.

I got married at 23. :hug:

I got married at almost 24 and I thought that was too young.

I almost got married when I was 20 but regained my sanity.

How can I say that I will never marry? How do I know? :hmm:

I was married at a young age.  I am glad I avoided the dating scene I saw people go through in their late 20s-40s.

I've been with the same beautiful, intelligent, vivacious woman for 20 years now. Just hope the wife never finds out.

I'll get me coat.

Actually been 12 years now, but we're not married. We both want to, mainly for tax reasons but neither of us can be arsed organising it.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 11:33:24 AM
I was married at a young age.  I am glad I avoided the dating scene I saw people go through in their late 20s-40s.

I guess it sounds like a good thing to avoid if one's whole goal is to hurry up and find the one.

Quote from: Gups on September 27, 2011, 11:36:41 AM
Actually been 12 years now, but we're not married. We both want to, mainly for tax reasons but neither of us can be arsed organising it.

Don't organize it.

Do it on your next vacation somewhere, or just step up to city hall and get it done.

Yes, just pop into the registry office with a couple of mates and have a few drinks afterwards.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 27, 2011, 10:00:30 AM
Both of the first two options.

Same here, but who am I kidding?

Yeah, I kind of agree but I'd quite like my son and the rest of my family to be there. Mind try to arrange a very small do and then have a big party after.

Quote from: Gups on September 27, 2011, 11:54:33 AM
Yeah, I kind of agree but I'd quite like my son and the rest of my family to be there. Mind try to arrange a very small do and then have a big party after.

That is what me and my wife did. Small church service, open bar reception with catered food.

Quote from: Jacob on September 27, 2011, 11:45:23 AM

Quote from: Gups on September 27, 2011, 11:36:41 AM
Actually been 12 years now, but we're not married. We both want to, mainly for tax reasons but neither of us can be arsed organising it.

Don't organize it.

Do it on your next vacation somewhere, or just step up to city hall and get it done.

Or just start calling yourself married.  Works here.

There are still useful tax benefits in the UK Ide, especially if you are quite well-off anyway.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 27, 2011, 11:59:33 AM
There are still useful tax benefits in the UK Ide, especially if you are quite well-off anyway.

No, I mean, it actually, legally works as a binding marriage here.

It probably does not work in the UK; it doesn't work in most states; but I was also kidding.:P

Quote from: Ideologue on September 27, 2011, 12:00:38 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 27, 2011, 11:59:33 AM
There are still useful tax benefits in the UK Ide, especially if you are quite well-off anyway.

No, I mean, it actually, legally works as a binding marriage here. :P

Hmmm, but what happens if you then say that you are not, after all, married?

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 27, 2011, 12:01:51 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 27, 2011, 12:00:38 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 27, 2011, 11:59:33 AM
There are still useful tax benefits in the UK Ide, especially if you are quite well-off anyway.

No, I mean, it actually, legally works as a binding marriage here. :P

Hmmm, but what happens if you then say that you are not, after all, married?

No such thing as common law divorce.  You have to go through regular channels.

The dispute there would be establishing the existence of a common law marriage.  Joint filing of tax returns along with cohabitancy is, iirc, more than sufficient.  Indeed, SC has some bizarre case law involving community reputation as potentially sufficient in itself.

So there was a lot of joking around with my law school pals about me pointedly refuting it any time they referred to Korea as my common law wife.

Quote from: Caliga on September 27, 2011, 11:22:29 AM

Quote from: Tyr on September 27, 2011, 11:18:22 AM
Never married, absolutely no plans to marry though if I'm with a girl who really wants to I guess I might. Though I really won't be happy if she insists on a big fancy party for it. In return anal shall be demanded. And more.

Thread winner.

Only if the "anal, and more" is made part of the wedding service.

"Well, once you let them write their own vows, you knew it would come to this eventualy ..."

Note to our foreign posters:  common-law marriages may be legally recognized in South Carolina, but as with almost all legal matters, that doesn't apply uniformly across the country.

Quote from: dps on September 27, 2011, 01:14:17 PM
Note to our foreign posters:  common-law marriages may be legally recognized in South Carolina, but as with almost all legal matters, that doesn't apply uniformly across the country.

I think they still accept confederate money too.

If I am to be married, I want my first dance on "Son tanto triste" by Ansaldo Bracchi, as conducted by Ennio Morricone, and a huge cake made of brown chocolate and orange marmelade.

Whoever gets the allusion without googling it wins my everlasting respect, because I'll feel exactly like most of the "guests" in that scene : hopelessly trapped and craptastic.

Quote from: Brazen on September 27, 2011, 08:56:29 AM
S'il te plait explique-moi ce "Lola" ci.

If Lola wins, 1.2 million Quebecers (on a population of 7 millions) will be shotgun married against their will because de facto union will be given the same legal statute as marriage, even though Quebec is French civil law territory and not common law. Including the dreaded alimony to the ex-partner in plus to child alimony, but minus the partition of patrimony after the separation, which was denied to Lola by the Cour d'Appel.

Quebec is the world leader in de facto unions. Most people here chose de facto union because they deliberately refuse to marry, either for personal or economical reasons, or simply because they are cheap bastards. All this is poised to change because of a Brazilian golddigger who is not satisfied of the hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly in child support, plus expenses paid, that Eric voluntarily consented to her, and a screaming bitch of a feminist lawyer who totes that every woman is a potential house slave to be compensated for her sacrifices.

Even some groups of women are riling up against this. First they feel infantilized because it's based on the assertion that women need to be supported throughout their lives and cannot be truly independent, plus in practice it opens up the door for legal macking: men who make lower incomes who can cuddle up with them for three years, then separate AND ask them to pay alimony as ex-partner.

We'll have an explosion of "separations" if Lola wins, because no one is interested in paying an alimony for living three years with a partner under the same roof, even if no child. So couples will probably choose to live under two different roofs instead, or whatever loophole they can find so that they are not considered life partners.

Quote from: Drakken on September 27, 2011, 01:25:29 PM

Quote from: Brazen on September 27, 2011, 08:56:29 AM
S'il te plait explique-moi ce "Lola" ci.

If Lola wins, 1.2 million Quebecers (on a population of 7 millions) will be shotgun married against their will because de facto union will be given the same legal statute as marriage, even though Quebec is French civil law territory and not common law. Including the dreaded alimony to the ex-partner in plus to child alimony, but minus the partition of patrimony after the separation, which was denied to Lola by the Cour d'Appel.

Quebec is the world leader in de facto unions. Most people here chose de facto union because they deliberately refuse to marry, either for personal or economical reasons, or simply because they are cheap bastards. All this will change because of a Brazilian golddigger who is not satisfied of the hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly in child support, plus expenses paid, that Eric voluntarily consented to her, and a screaming bitch of a feminist lawyer who totes that every woman is a potential house slave to be compensated for her sacrifices.

We'll have an explosion of "separations" if Lola wins, because no one is interested in paying an alimony for living three years with a partner under the same roof, even if no child. So couples will probably choose to live under two different roofs instead, or whatever loophole they can find so that they are not considered life partners.

You'd be a lot more persuasive if you kept out the misogynistic slurs in your post.

And I seriously doubt more than a handful of couples will suddenly separate.  Of the Quebecers I've talked to, they've all said they didn't get married because, well, nobody else got married.  The whole province just got out of the habit of being married.

Quote from: Barrister on September 27, 2011, 01:40:04 PM
You'd be a lot more persuasive if you kept out the misogynistic slurs in your post.

And I seriously doubt more than a handful of couples will suddenly separate.  Of the Quebecers I've talked to, they've all said they didn't get married because, well, nobody else got married.  The whole province just got out of the habit of being married.

I am not in front of a tribunal, so I can use whatever language I feel like, votre Seigneurie. And my language is tame, compared to what some men AND women have uttered in my presence on these two people.

I loath Anne-Marie Goldwater, the public persona. She might be a good jurist, but I despise her personality and every interview I've watched her showed herself as a shrew, a reactionary feminist and an attention-seeker. And no one here respects Lola, either. Anyway, AMG will not be part of Lola's team at the SCC. She has been fired.

It's not misogyny, it's my loathing for two individuals who will change the life of more than a million Quebecers for the worst, due to sheer avidity and a pathological need for lecturing a whole population out of ideology, without any concern for the consequences.

And talking to two-three Quebecers in the dearth of Yukon do not a sample make. I live in this Province for 31 years, may I remind you. You sir ain't.

Stop. with. the. editing.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 27, 2011, 01:49:31 PM
Stop. with. the. editing.

I'm done.

charge your partner rent. I'm sure if they're inclined they can now charge you with sexual harrassment after you break up as a tenet, but at least no alimony :P

Quote from: Drakken on September 27, 2011, 01:43:00 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 27, 2011, 01:40:04 PM
You'd be a lot more persuasive if you kept out the misogynistic slurs in your post.

And I seriously doubt more than a handful of couples will suddenly separate.  Of the Quebecers I've talked to, they've all said they didn't get married because, well, nobody else got married.  The whole province just got out of the habit of being married.

I am not in front of a tribunal, so I can use whatever language I feel like, votre Seigneurie. And my language is tame, compared to what some men AND women have uttered in my presence on these two people.

I loath Anne-Marie Goldwater, the public persona. She might be a good jurist, but I despise her personality and every interview I've watched her showed herself as a shrew, a reactionary feminist and an attention-seeker. And no one here respects Lola, either. Anyway, AMG will not be part of Lola's team at the SCC. She has been fired.

It's not misogyny, it's my loathing for two individuals who will change the life of more than a million Quebecers for the worst, due to sheer avidity and a pathological need for lecturing a whole population out of ideology, without any concern for the consequences.

And talking to two-three Quebecers in the dearth of Yukon do not a sample make. I live in this Province for 31 years, may I remind you. You sir ain't.

Yey somehow when it comes to issues of women in Quebec I feel like I have the more realistic opinion... :hmm:

 :D

Lots of folks common-law it in other Canadian provinces, no harm done.

Quote from: Barrister on September 27, 2011, 02:04:26 PM
Yey somehow when it comes to issues of women in Quebec I feel like I people who are not Drakken have the more realistic opinion... :hmm:

Fixed.

Quote from: Barrister on September 27, 2011, 02:04:26 PM
Yey somehow when it comes to issues of women in Quebec I feel like I have the more realistic opinion... :hmm:

Odd, since even women groups in Quebec (except those who advocate in favour of single mothers, who have issues to lobby) have been vocal in there disagreement over this decision. It's not a man v. woman issue, as most women were as much outraged at the idea, but whether it's the court or the legislator who should decide the rules of engagement around marital statutes, and whether Quebecers will lose the flexibility and the freedom surrounding the choice of being de facto partners, all based on a domestic quarrel involving parties which have more money together than 99.9% of the Quebec population and a lifestyle totally out-of-touch to most Quebecers.

Plus, polls made after the verdict showed that 56% of those polled believed that de facto unions shouldn't have the same protections as a marriage without a contract, outside of child support, which is already covered under the Civil Code, compared to 35% in favour.

QuotePrès de 56 % des répondants ont dit que s'il n'y a pas de contrat de mariage, «aucun des conjoints de fait ne devrait avoir de responsabilité financière envers l'autre lors d'une rupture (excluant la pension alimentaire aux enfants)».

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/311005/lola-et-eric-pas-d-obligation-financiere-sans-contrat-de-mariage-disent-les-quebecois

So yes, if Lola wins, we are effectively shotgun-wedded by the million.

Quote from: Drakken on September 27, 2011, 02:31:23 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 27, 2011, 02:04:26 PM
Yey somehow when it comes to issues of women in Quebec I feel like I have the more realistic opinion... :hmm:

Odd, since even women groups in Quebec (except those who advocate in favour of single mothers, who have issues to lobby) have been vocal in there disagreement over this decision. It's not a man v. woman issue, as most women were as much outraged at the idea than men were, but whether it's the court or the legislator who should decide the rules of engagement around marital statutes, and whether Quebecers will lose the flexibility and the freedom surrounding the choice of being de facto partners, all based on a domestic quarrel involving parties which have more money together than 99.9% of the Quebec population.

Plus, polls made after the verdict showed that 56% of those polled believed that de facto unions shouldn't have the same protections as a marriage without a contract, outside of child support, which is already covered under the Civil Code.

QuotePrès de 56 % des répondants ont dit que s'il n'y a pas de contrat de mariage, «aucun des conjoints de fait ne devrait avoir de responsabilité financière envers l'autre lors d'une rupture (excluant la pension alimentaire aux enfants)».

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/311005/lola-et-eric-pas-d-obligation-financiere-sans-contrat-de-mariage-disent-les-quebecois

In those provinces having common-law protections, they are not "the same" as marriage - the *support* obligations are the same, but the *property sharing* is different.

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 02:38:39 PM
In those provinces having common-law protections, they are not "the same" as marriage - the *support* obligations are the same, but the *property sharing* is different.

It would be effectively the same here if Lola wins. In the Cour d'Appel decision the judges invalidated all dispositions of the Civil Code over the obligations after separation, except those touching property sharing.

But the core of the problem is in the alimony to the ex-partner. That's what makes it unpalatable to most Quebecers, and the fact that in Quebec de facto unions are considered a flexible manner to provide for a family and child support after separation, outside of the complications surrounding marriage. You live together, you break-up, and the only common obligation is toward any child you have had together.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 11:25:12 AM
Why?

Use you money for stuff that matters, like a nice place to live.

That's implied, and should be taken care of within the next several months (hopefully).

Quote from: Drakken on September 27, 2011, 02:46:26 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 02:38:39 PM
In those provinces having common-law protections, they are not "the same" as marriage - the *support* obligations are the same, but the *property sharing* is different.

It would be effectively the same here if Lola wins. In the Cour d'Appel decision the judges invalidated all dispositions of the Civil Code over the obligations after separation, except those touching property sharing.

But the core of the problem is in the alimony to the ex-partner. That's what makes it unpalatable to most Quebecers, and the fact that in Quebec de facto unions are considered a flexible manner to provide for a family and child support after separation, outside of the complications surrounding marriage. You live together, you break-up, and the only common obligation is toward any child you have had together.

From a social POV, it is desireable - particularly if "traditional" marriage has gone by the wayside.

Support obligations prevent the poorer of the couple from (on average) being more likely to fall into into poverty and be supported by social services.

Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2011, 11:39:13 AM
I guess it sounds like a good thing to avoid if one's whole goal is to hurry up and find the one.

The main point is watching people my age go through internet dating.

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 02:38:39 PM

In those provinces having common-law protections, they are not "the same" as marriage - the *support* obligations are the same, but the *property sharing* is different.

we had a thread about that recently. I disagreed with you. That's all i recall.

Oh, and that CC was on my side that you were evil :P

If you depend on your non-husband man for support maybe you should make an effort to keep him. Don't put on weight, do anal etc. Just a thought.

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 02:54:25 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 02:38:39 PM

In those provinces having common-law protections, they are not "the same" as marriage - the *support* obligations are the same, but the *property sharing* is different.

we had a thread about that recently. I disagreed with you. That's all i recall.

Oh, and that CC was on my side that you were evil :P

Eh? Far as I know the law is as I have stated it - dunno what there is to disagree with.

Quote from: The Brain on September 27, 2011, 02:58:46 PM
If you depend on your non-husband man for support maybe you should make an effort to keep him. Don't put on weight, do anal etc. Just a thought.

Haul a big load of hay, don't attract too many flies, keep the stable clean, that sort of thing.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 02:54:20 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2011, 11:39:13 AM
I guess it sounds like a good thing to avoid if one's whole goal is to hurry up and find the one.

The main point is watching people my age go through internet dating.

That is particularly painful.  :lol:

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 02:59:26 PM

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 02:54:25 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 02:38:39 PM

In those provinces having common-law protections, they are not "the same" as marriage - the *support* obligations are the same, but the *property sharing* is different.

we had a thread about that recently. I disagreed with you. That's all i recall.

Oh, and that CC was on my side that you were evil :P

Eh? Far as I know the law is as I have stated it - dunno what there is to disagree with.

we were arguing the ethics of the law, not the law itself.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 02:54:20 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2011, 11:39:13 AM
I guess it sounds like a good thing to avoid if one's whole goal is to hurry up and find the one.

The main point is watching people my age go through internet dating.

20% of people my age group does it that way. Never tried, but i'm not opposed to the idea.

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 03:06:17 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 02:54:20 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2011, 11:39:13 AM
I guess it sounds like a good thing to avoid if one's whole goal is to hurry up and find the one.

The main point is watching people my age go through internet dating.

20% of people my age group does it that way. Never tried, but i'm not opposed to the idea.

You will be - when you find out the person you've spent time communicating with and really seemed to "click" with online has given you a pic taken ten years and fifty pounds ago.  :P

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 03:02:58 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 02:54:20 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2011, 11:39:13 AM
I guess it sounds like a good thing to avoid if one's whole goal is to hurry up and find the one.

The main point is watching people my age go through internet dating.

That is particularly painful.  :lol:

Is it? :huh:

Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2011, 03:17:06 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 03:02:58 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 02:54:20 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2011, 11:39:13 AM
I guess it sounds like a good thing to avoid if one's whole goal is to hurry up and find the one.

The main point is watching people my age go through internet dating.

That is particularly painful.  :lol:

Is it? :huh:

Yes it is.  To watch anyway.  I can understand how people forced to use such tools might downplay their plight.

Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2011, 03:17:06 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 03:02:58 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 02:54:20 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2011, 11:39:13 AM
I guess it sounds like a good thing to avoid if one's whole goal is to hurry up and find the one.

The main point is watching people my age go through internet dating.

That is particularly painful.  :lol:

Is it? :huh:

To watch? Yup.

For one, people in their mid-40s generally did not grow up using the 'net and often aren't real comfy with using it for such intimate matters. They aren't used, for example, to the sheer level of bullshit that must be filtered.

First clue is that if the 18 year old belly dancer is interested in you there's a good chance she's a male truck driver :P

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 03:21:31 PM
To watch? Yup.

For one, people in their mid-40s generally did not grow up using the 'net and often aren't real comfy with using it for such intimate matters. They aren't used, for example, to the sheer level of bullshit that must be filtered.

As opposed to other means of dating where everybody is straight up and honest.  In any case I never had any more problems with internet dating than I had with meeting people other means.

Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2011, 03:49:56 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 03:21:31 PM
To watch? Yup.

For one, people in their mid-40s generally did not grow up using the 'net and often aren't real comfy with using it for such intimate matters. They aren't used, for example, to the sheer level of bullshit that must be filtered.

As opposed to other means of dating where everybody is straight up and honest.  In any case I never had any more problems with internet dating than I had with meeting people other means.

When I was dating I could tell the difference between an 18 year old female and a 40 year old male trucker.  Probably still can if I meet them in person.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 03:19:16 PM
Yes it is.  To watch anyway.  I can understand how people forced to use such tools might downplay their plight.

Fuck you too.  :mad:

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 03:52:12 PM
When I was dating I could tell the difference between an 18 year old female and a 40 year old male trucker.  Probably still can if I meet them in person.

If you are in your 40s and you are hitting on people online thinking they are 18 year old girls you probably already have problems.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 03:52:12 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2011, 03:49:56 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 03:21:31 PM
To watch? Yup.

For one, people in their mid-40s generally did not grow up using the 'net and often aren't real comfy with using it for such intimate matters. They aren't used, for example, to the sheer level of bullshit that must be filtered.

As opposed to other means of dating where everybody is straight up and honest.  In any case I never had any more problems with internet dating than I had with meeting people other means.

When I was dating I could tell the difference between an 18 year old female and a 40 year old male trucker.  Probably still can if I meet them in person.

and I take it you choose the trucker everytime? :P

Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2011, 03:53:44 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 03:52:12 PM
When I was dating I could tell the difference between an 18 year old female and a 40 year old male trucker.  Probably still can if I meet them in person.

If you are in your 40s and you are hitting on people online thinking they are 18 year old girls you probably already have problems.

Not the least of which is you are hitting on what you think is an 18 year old through the internet...

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 03:55:39 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 03:52:12 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2011, 03:49:56 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 03:21:31 PM
To watch? Yup.

For one, people in their mid-40s generally did not grow up using the 'net and often aren't real comfy with using it for such intimate matters. They aren't used, for example, to the sheer level of bullshit that must be filtered.

As opposed to other means of dating where everybody is straight up and honest.  In any case I never had any more problems with internet dating than I had with meeting people other means.

When I was dating I could tell the difference between an 18 year old female and a 40 year old male trucker.  Probably still can if I meet them in person.

and I take it you choose the trucker everytime? :P

Valmy says if I didnt I would have problems.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 03:55:53 PM
Not the least of which is you are hitting on what you think is an 18 year old through the internet...

I never once had this problem despite internet dating for several years.  Not that I had many 18 year olds I was dating once I got past a certain age.  In fact at no time did I ever meet somebody for a date who was not basically who she said she was.

My numbers were wrong btw. It's 25% not 20%. Chalk it up to a generational thing.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 03:56:21 PM
Valmy says if I didnt I would have problems.

Hey I just think it is sorta creepy when you are hitting on people young enough to be your kids.  But I get not everybody feels that way.

Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2011, 04:00:26 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 03:56:21 PM
Valmy says if I didnt I would have problems.

Hey I just think it is sorta creepy when you are hitting on people young enough to be your kids.  But I get not everybody feels that way.

queue " dazed and confused" clip

Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2011, 03:57:28 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 03:55:53 PM
Not the least of which is you are hitting on what you think is an 18 year old through the internet...

I never once had this problem despite internet dating for several years.  Not that I had many 18 year olds I was dating once I got past a certain age.  In fact at no time did I ever meet somebody for a date who was not basically who she said she was.

:yes:

Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2011, 03:49:56 PM
As opposed to other means of dating where everybody is straight up and honest.  In any case I never had any more problems with internet dating than I had with meeting people other means.

Kinda hard to disguise what you look like when you see someone in person ...   ;)

I've known many people my age who have gotten 'stung' internet dating, mostly by misrepresentations based on appearance - some folks seem to think, if they can get the face-to-face, there is a chance the other person will go for it anyway.   :D

It does make things easier if you are into hooking up a lot for just sex, though, particularly if you are female - they have the advantage there. My secretary loves doing that.

I think we hit a sensitive spot with Valmy.  HVC makes a time honoured joke about truckers pretending to be teenage girls and V takes it all very seriously.  Me thinks he protests too much.

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 04:07:04 PM


It does make things easier if you are into hooking up a lot for just sex, though, particularly if you are female - they have the advantage there. My secretary loves doing that.

Pics :contract: :P

Never married, jury's still out on if that status will ever change.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 04:09:04 PM
I think we hit a sensitive spot with Valmy.  HVC makes a time honoured joke about truckers pretending to be teenage girls and V takes it all very seriously.  Me thinks he protests too much.

good old euromaniac

Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 27, 2011, 04:09:52 PM
Never married, jury's still out on if that status will ever change.

you're way behind. We've moved onto online dating and its perils. 

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 04:10:48 PM

Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 27, 2011, 04:09:52 PM
Never married, jury's still out on if that status will ever change.

you're way behind. We've moved onto online dating and its parels.

Meh.

PS - Perils.

Beaten by 21 seconds :weep:

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 04:09:12 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 04:07:04 PM


It does make things easier if you are into hooking up a lot for just sex, though, particularly if you are female - they have the advantage there. My secretary loves doing that.

Pics :contract: :P

The only pic I actually have is her professional profile pic.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi5.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy176%2Fmalthusmalthus%2Ftsergase.jpg&hash=ab0e8e293d1438e6ff98e2b5375f2f9ddf209692)

She's a bit older than me, but still gets lots of action. She's in great shape, body-wise.

You need a younger secretary <_< :( :D

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 04:18:05 PM
You need a younger secretary <_< :( :D

At the end of the day, her typing and filing skills actually matter more - believe it or not - than the completely non-existant possibility of sex.   :P

Some times a nice view is appreciated. I'm not gonna screw the garden outside my window, but sometimes looking at it helps the workday go by faster :D

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 04:09:04 PM
I think we hit a sensitive spot with Valmy.  HVC makes a time honoured joke about truckers pretending to be teenage girls and V takes it all very seriously.  Me thinks he protests too much.

I was taking seriously you talking about your friends.  Besides I thought HVC was talking about that Euro Maniac "chick" on Paradox.

Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2011, 04:25:04 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 04:09:04 PM
I think we hit a sensitive spot with Valmy.  HVC makes a time honoured joke about truckers pretending to be teenage girls and V takes it all very seriously.  Me thinks he protests too much.

I was taking seriously you talking about your friends.  Besides I thought HVC was talking about that Euro Maniac chick on Paradox.

Sure.

*fetches popcorn*

Do carry on.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 04:25:54 PM
Sure.

Yep.

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 04:07:04 PM
Kinda hard to disguise what you look like when you see someone in person ...   ;)

You can misrepresent yourself other ways though.

Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2011, 04:28:29 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 04:07:04 PM
Kinda hard to disguise what you look like when you see someone in person ...   ;)

You can misrepresent yourself other ways though.

Granted but the opportunities for misrepresentation are much greater on-line.  Not sure why you are fighting on this point. 

Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2011, 04:28:29 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 04:07:04 PM
Kinda hard to disguise what you look like when you see someone in person ...   ;)

You can misrepresent yourself other ways though.

Of course. The anonimity of the 'net just provides *more* opportunity for misrepresentation, by making it easier to misrepresent more things.

Edit: woah simulpost.  :D

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 04:30:12 PM
Granted but the opportunities for misrepresentation are much greater on-line.  Not sure why you are fighting on this point. 

I am not fighting jack I am simply reporting my own experience.  It was never an issue.

Hard to choose for me. I don't think I can say I will "never marry" but I do not "intend to marry" in future either. However I do not exclude the possibility if laws in Poland changed and I thought it was a good idea at the time.

Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2011, 04:33:32 PM
Hard to choose for me. I don't think I can say I will "never marry" but I do not "intend to marry" in future either. However I do not exclude the possibility if laws in Poland changed and I thought it was a good idea at the time.

You might say - you'd "vote with your feet"?  ;)

Hey hey hey. Let's get back to the important matter at Hand. Namely getting Malthus to get a hot secretary and then, just as importantly, setting me up with said hot secretary :perv:

What the fuck does everyone have against truckers?

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 04:07:04 PM
It does make things easier if you are into hooking up a lot for just sex, though, particularly if you are female - they have the advantage there. My secretary loves doing that.

You shouldn't talk to your secretary about things like this.  What's the Canadian equivalent of the EEOC?  I'm reporting you to them. :)

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 04:55:01 PM
Hey hey hey. Let's get back to the important matter at Hand. Namely getting Malthus to get a hot secretary and then, just as importantly, setting me up with said hot secretary :perv:

I have a hot secretary :)

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2011, 11:25:12 AM

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 27, 2011, 10:37:09 AM
Never married, but S and I are going to as soon as we can afford to do something nicer than two witnesses at city hall.

Why?

Use you money for stuff that matters, like a nice place to live.

He lives in the US.  Thanks to the housing crash, he could get a 'nice place to live' (relatively, because he's still in the US) for three bus tokens, an elastic band and a lollypop from the doctor's office.

Quote from: viper37 on September 27, 2011, 06:27:23 PM

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 04:55:01 PM
Hey hey hey. Let's get back to the important matter at Hand. Namely getting Malthus to get a hot secretary and then, just as importantly, setting me up with said hot secretary :perv:

I have a hot secretary :)

You're too far away :P

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 02:53:41 PM
From a social POV, it is desireable - particularly if "traditional" marriage has gone by the wayside.

Support obligations prevent the poorer of the couple from (on average) being more likely to fall into into poverty and be supported by social services.

Wrong.  It is undesirable because it increases the power of courts and lawyers.  Because you can rest assured that courts and lawyers are pretty much never working in your interest, it is wise to support limiting them in every way possible, with an eye towards abolishing them.

Naturally: 'never married - never will marry'.

-----

Some people thrive on this - I don't.





G.

Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2011, 07:15:04 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 02:53:41 PM
From a social POV, it is desireable - particularly if "traditional" marriage has gone by the wayside.

Support obligations prevent the poorer of the couple from (on average) being more likely to fall into into poverty and be supported by social services.

Wrong.  It is undesirable because it increases the power of courts and lawyers.  Because you can rest assured that courts and lawyers are pretty much never working in your interest, it is wise to support limiting them in every way possible, with an eye towards abolishing them.

:secret: Malthus is a lawyer.

Malthus will be retrained so that he can perform a job that isn't socially destructive.

Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2011, 07:41:14 PM
Malthus will be retrained so that he can perform a job that isn't socially destructive.

Yukon Jack distributor?
Oil Shale huckster?
Pipeline impresario?
Toronto protection racket guru?

Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 27, 2011, 07:42:45 PM

Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2011, 07:41:14 PM
Malthus will be retrained so that he can perform a job that isn't socially destructive.

Yukon Jack distributor?
Oil Shale huckster?
Pipeline impresario?
Toronto protection racket guru?

All of those things are less destructive to society than a lawyer (except for the pipeline thing, which is an attack on my people).  They're either purveyors of harmless vices, suppliers of critically important resources or petty criminals.  The lawyer is serpent who poisons society with confusion, lies, litigiousness, intolerance and apathy.

You people know where I stand on this issue.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2011, 10:30:00 PM
You people know where I stand on this issue.

Actually, I don't.

Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2011, 07:55:56 PM

Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 27, 2011, 07:42:45 PM

Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2011, 07:41:14 PM
Malthus will be retrained so that he can perform a job that isn't socially destructive.

Yukon Jack distributor?
Oil Shale huckster?
Pipeline impresario?
Toronto protection racket guru?

All of those things are less destructive to society than a lawyer (except for the pipeline thing, which is an attack on my people).  They're either purveyors of harmless vices, suppliers of critically important resources or petty criminals.  The lawyer is serpent who poisons society with confusion, lies, litigiousness, intolerance and apathy.

:rolleyes:

Sometimes, just sometimes, a lawyer (a barrister even) if the one who protects and defends society.  You know - one who represents the authorities, The Crown even...

Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2011, 10:51:17 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2011, 10:30:00 PM
You people know where I stand on this issue.

Actually, I don't.

He feels much the same about marriage as you do about the "Tea Party".

Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2011, 04:28:29 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 04:07:04 PM
Kinda hard to disguise what you look like when you see someone in person ...   ;)

You can misrepresent yourself other ways though.

Like already having a BF and lying about it.
Although that happens in non-internet dating too, so yeah :D

What's the problem with internet dating? Seems to work great.

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 04:17:01 PM

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 04:09:12 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 27, 2011, 04:07:04 PM


It does make things easier if you are into hooking up a lot for just sex, though, particularly if you are female - they have the advantage there. My secretary loves doing that.

Pics :contract: :P

The only pic I actually have is her professional profile pic.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi5.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy176%2Fmalthusmalthus%2Ftsergase.jpg&hash=ab0e8e293d1438e6ff98e2b5375f2f9ddf209692)

She's a bit older than me, but still gets lots of action. She's in great shape, body-wise.

Malthus, I accept your secretary as she is.

Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2011, 04:55:01 PM
Hey hey hey. Let's get back to the important matter at Hand. Namely getting Malthus to get a hot secretary and then, just as importantly, setting me up with said hot secretary :perv:

Allegedly my secretary is the hottest one in our office.

Quote from: Barrister on September 27, 2011, 11:01:53 PM
:rolleyes:

Sometimes, just sometimes, a lawyer (a barrister even) if the one who protects and defends society.  You know - one who represents the authorities, The Crown even...

Not really.  They still work within a system that their fellows have utterly corrupted.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 27, 2011, 11:38:22 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2011, 10:51:17 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2011, 10:30:00 PM
You people know where I stand on this issue.

Actually, I don't.

He feels much the same about marriage as you do about the "Tea Party".

I've never exploited a Tea Party member and used her allegiance to it as leverage.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2011, 08:39:04 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 27, 2011, 11:38:22 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2011, 10:51:17 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2011, 10:30:00 PM
You people know where I stand on this issue.

Actually, I don't.

He feels much the same about marriage as you do about the "Tea Party".

I've never exploited a Tea Party member and used her allegiance to it as leverage.

I'd love to find a Tea Party chick, and make her watch Hoffa as I assfuck her from behind.

I'm sure you can work something out with cal :D

Currently married, quite happy

V

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 28, 2011, 09:32:33 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2011, 08:39:04 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 27, 2011, 11:38:22 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2011, 10:51:17 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2011, 10:30:00 PM
You people know where I stand on this issue.

Actually, I don't.

He feels much the same about marriage as you do about the "Tea Party".

I've never exploited a Tea Party member and used her allegiance to it as leverage.

I'd love to find a Tea Party chick, and make her watch Hoffa as I assfuck her from behind.

"Do as I say, love, or I'll tell your precious fellow Teabaggers that you are a closeted Obama-lover and show the pictures of him in presidential poses that I've found hidden in your drawer stash". :contract: