Edits to post #25289938 by leanlifter1
Edited at 2014-11-09 17:08:55
At 11/9/14 03:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
So much you don't understand...
So much we both don't understand and so much we do.
First off, the love I was speaking of is NOT lust. It's companionship love. Any marriage that lasts more than a couple years thrives on this sort of love.
There's Love, Lust, Romance, Friendship/companionship, Respect for ones self and respect for others and by others. These qualities all have to be true to insure a solid relationship between man and wife or errhem arrregushhit man/man women/women. I was never talking about simple lust. I can understand what you are saying though in that when married or in a dedicated and solid relationship the couple become tag team partners in life and together are stronger than when separate and this can be a sort of love. When I am old and gray and my ballz are hanging to my knees and my wife's tit's are down to hers and my dick only works maybe once a month then this is when another kind of love comes into play ... perhaps true love and no Government can tax that shit.
Oh, and the key point I was making is that this is the love that keeps marriages and families together, and does not require an ounce of romantic love to exist. I would actually posit that your high importance placed upon romantic love has done more to hurt marriage than any amount of gayness could. The high divorce rate is largely based upon people thinking that romantic love is all that is needed for marriage. When it fades, these people divorce. Or, when it fades, the partners go out and seek it extramaritally.
Romancing and getting your women off is of extremely high important cause if you don't she will find someone that "can do it for her" and you will be nothing more than her friend at best.
Now, Companionship is something that is built. People who have no love for eachother can uild this love through work. Oh, and last I chekced, public marriage (shit even privat emarriage) never required actual love. At the most they required the appearance of actual love. So why change the rules now, because you're afraid you might start wanting it in the butt because gay people do it?
Oh the argumentative fallacy is strong in this one.
In Canada even with a Prenuptial agreement it is ultimately up to the Judge who gets what and most of the time due to minority rights and affirmative action the women still gets awarded more things that she did not earn or deserve in the first place. In the past prior to massive Government intervention and programing the women was reliant on her man to bring her resources ... now in days the women can steal from the man through the use of Government programs in turn mitigating his place and job in the relationship.That's a problem with your government. If you don't like that, get those laws changed.
The people cannot change shit and you know this. Unless you have massive amount's of finical influence you, I or anyone will never change anything within Corporate run Governmental plutocracy.
I'm pretty sure you have said all state marriage is bad and that gay have no business being in marriage becuase your personal disgusts are more important than everyone else. "Finally, and here's the biggest kicker to all you, if you don't like state marriage, just don't get your marriage (should you choose to have one) recognized by the state. It's that easy."
What I have been saying for some time.
At 11/9/14 03:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
So much you don't understand...
So much we both don't understand and so much we do.
First off, the love I was speaking of is NOT lust. It's companionship love. Any marriage that lasts more than a couple years thrives on this sort of love.
There's Love, Lust, Romance, Friendship/companionship, Respect for ones self and respect for others and by others. These qualities all have to be true to insure a solid relationship between man and wife or errhem arrregushhit man/man women/women. I was never talking about simple lust. I can understand what you are saying though in that when married or in a dedicated and solid relationship the couple become tag team partners in life and together are stronger than when separate and this can be a sort of love. When I am old and gray and my ballz are hanging to my knees and my wife's tit's are down to hers and my dick only works maybe once a month then this is when another kind of love comes into play ... perhaps true love and no Government can tax that shit.
Oh, and the key point I was making is that this is the love that keeps marriages and families together, and does not require an ounce of romantic love to exist. I would actually posit that your high importance placed upon romantic love has done more to hurt marriage than any amount of gayness could. The high divorce rate is largely based upon people thinking that romantic love is all that is needed for marriage. When it fades, these people divorce. Or, when it fades, the partners go out and seek it extramaritally.
Romancing and getting your women off is of extremely high important cause if you don't she will find someone that "can do it for her" and you will be nothing more than her friend at best.
Now, Companionship is something that is built. People who have no love for eachother can uild this love through work. Oh, and last I chekced, public marriage (shit even privat emarriage) never required actual love. At the most they required the appearance of actual love. So why change the rules now, because you're afraid you might start wanting it in the butt because gay people do it?
Oh the argumentative fallacy is strong in this one.
In Canada even with a Prenuptial agreement it is ultimately up to the Judge who gets what and most of the time due to minority rights and affirmative action the women still gets awarded more things that she did not earn or deserve in the first place. In the past prior to massive Government intervention and programing the women was reliant on her man to bring her resources ... now in days the women can steal from the man through the use of Government programs in turn mitigating his place and job in the relationship.That's a problem with your government. If you don't like that, get those laws changed.
The people cannot change shit and you know this. Unless you have massive amount's of financial influence you, I or anyone will never change anything within Corporate run Governmental plutocracy.
I'm pretty sure you have said all state marriage is bad and that gay have no business being in marriage becuase your personal disgusts are more important than everyone else. "Finally, and here's the biggest kicker to all you, if you don't like state marriage, just don't get your marriage (should you choose to have one) recognized by the state. It's that easy."
What I have been saying for some time.
