Advise - Page 7

mlmbd · #61 December 11th, 2002, 02:57 AM

OK! To all posting. I think we can ALL agree that, MEN and WOMEN have relationships! OK, I said it!

Sorry, I was just reading through all the Posts. All the differing thoughts and opinions (which by the way is one of the reasons I started this thread) and that thought just HIT me. The more I read the funnier that thought became. Until I just had to share it.

I do/did not mean to change the on-going discussion. So for my less than serious post, I APOLOGIZE to all of you! Hopefully you all can understand!

mlmbd

Gryphin · #62 December 11th, 2002, 05:09 AM

mlmbd
I'm pretty sure your post was taken in the vein it was given. I like your wry sence of humor.

mlmbd · #63 December 12th, 2002, 04:43 AM

Gryphin, I hope so. The ongoing discussion is very interesting. And yes, the sence of humor is a bit wry.

But not always!

mlmbd

DirectorTsaarx · #64 December 12th, 2002, 10:23 PM

mlmbd - thanks for the comic relief; I read this forum mainly to have fun, even if I do get caught up in some rather serious debates...

And, back on a serious note, related to the discussion of hate group activities: a dozen or so states have laws that make cross-burning illegal. However, the Supreme Court is deciding whether those laws are unconstitutional (or maybe they've already said that; the details are a little fuzzy right now). There's some wacky debate going on about whether cross-burning is intimidation, free speech, or something else.

mlmbd · #65 December 12th, 2002, 10:56 PM

DirectorTsaarx,

Quote:

mlmbd - thanks for the comic relief;

It was My pleasure!

Quote:

I read this forum mainly to have fun, even if I do get caught up in some rather serious debates...

Nothing at all wrong with having 'Fun' or 'Serious Debates'. I hope you continue to enjoy the Forum's, and this thread!

I don't agree with HATE MONGERS , in the least. I see no reason for cross burning! However, I do think they should be allowed to burn there cross's. As long as the cross is not in someone's front yard!

mlmbd

Gryphin · #66 December 12th, 2002, 11:50 PM

I belive the court said something along the lines of, "they do it to cause terror". It stopped short of using the word "terrorism".

Krsqk · #67 December 13th, 2002, 03:16 AM

The Court seemed pretty divided today until Clarence Thomas spoke. He said those suing to overturn the state laws were understating the purpose of cross burning, that it was not just to make a statment but contained an inherent threat of violence and was meant to intimidate, making it unprotected speech. That seemed to sway most of the Court.

Gryphin · #68 December 13th, 2002, 03:37 AM

About Divorce:
Did we reach a consensus or did we agree to dissagree?

Krsqk · #69 December 13th, 2002, 03:46 AM

I think we agreed that it's not ideal, and that some situations are happier afterward than before. It would be much nicer if it weren't necessary, or if there were more protections to hold using creeps liable for dumping a woman without support the minute they're done with them.

"Can't we all just get along?" (said in a laughably pitiful pleading voice)

DirectorTsaarx · #70 December 13th, 2002, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Krsqk:
I think we agreed that it's not ideal, and that some situations are happier afterward than before. It would be much nicer if it weren't necessary, or if there were more protections to hold using creeps liable for dumping a woman without support the minute they're done with them.

"Can't we all just get along?" (said in a laughably pitiful pleading voice)

Your summation sounds about right to me. I'm willing to "just get along" - but I'm glad for the chance to participate in a reasonably civilized debate

As for Gryphin's postulations on the origins of marriage, I'd add the idea that marriage provides a basis for paternal inheritance. In other words, it's generally obvious who a child's mother is - 9 months of pregnancy, not to mention the actual childbirth, are pretty good clues. Paternity was a little more difficult historically (although advances in DNA testing have made it easier, but not necessarily perfectly accurate either). Marriage, and the assumption of monogamy after marriage, leads to the conclusion that any children borne by the female partner in said marriage were indeed fathered by the male partner in said marriage. And, therefore, any titles, land, worldly possessions, etc. can then be inherited by those children with few (if any) social or legal obstructions. Of course, paternity only becomes important in patriarchal societies and/or in societies that do not provide for women during the childbearing years. After all, pregnancy and childraising require a great deal of energy...