Maybe, ya think, this generation is rediscovering what folks of my generational reality knew instinctively, pre the pill and the plethora of a birth control options. That if children especially are to be part of the equation, "shacking up" is just too casual a commitment between certainly a would be hetero family couple. That it inadequately secures the interests of ALL the parties-, mom, kids AND the old man even?

It's that element of procreation which is really at the root of the raison d'etre for the hetero-sexual relationship, and the institution of marriage which flows out of that. For all the denial and spoiled child-adult behaviours which still seek to ignore the reality. Otherwise, I suppose, though its not my "bent", up the old poop chute and pussy to pussy could for sure as well be the norm. (Except then, if our off spring really did grow out of the ground like cabbages, why would nature need "sex" to drive "most of us" towards doing what comes naturally, which coincidentally uninterfered with, reproduces our own kind. It's what makes homosexual "marriage" such a foolish, if relatively harmless "notion"; it's always a dry hump anyway. At least so it seems to most heterosexuals. :-)

Of course "marriage" was destined to make a comeback-, if the intent at some point is to have kids rather than extinction or endless immigration. Maybe it took even deeply committed "queers'" desire to be let into the "institution" to simply drive that point home to some hetersexual folks, otherwise too self-preoccupied with "careers" and such to see and appreciate the value of the history.

Like youth is often wasted on the young, marriage would certainly be wasted on "just" dry hole homosexuals-, ya think? :-) (And I'm not particularly opposed to allowing homosexuals to marry. Just think it is another human foolishness amongst many. Probably a harmless enough one.)

The comments by Hutchinson don’t make sense to me. She’d prefer to be twice-divorced at 26? Does she think that somehow marriage would have saved these young relationships?

I’ve met a few male “cows” myself so I don’t see this “holding out” thing as an entirely female point of view. Some people want to tie the knot early on in a relationship because they’re swept up by the fairy tale ideals. Fine, great, but they sometimes grow up and out of that, whether they do it together or not. After shacking up for years, my cousin committed to having two kids with her partner, but she didn’t feel the need to marry. Some people would see her as the ultimate chump. What about him? Is he a cow because she won’t marry him?

If a porn stash is a deal-breaker, I think we’re all screwed. Does a bedside drawer crammed with vibrators and an obsession with Orlando Bloom movies scare men off? That’s not a rhetorical question: do they?

Coyote, if hets are marrying as a reaction to gay marriage, they’re PROBABLY the idiots.

I agree. :-)

Jennifer Selk:

Two Years.

You are married, just in a way that makes proving it difficult.

You are married, just in a way that causes a real nasty mess if one or the other of you decides to 'split'.

Far be it from me to quibble with the good burghers of Rutgers University, but, the October 15, 2006 edition of the New York Times contained a long article interpreting the latest US census figures.

It's too long to post in its entirety and it's no longer available for free on the web.

I'll just paste in few short paragraphs:

Married couples, whose numbers have been declining for decades as a proportion of American households, have finally slipped into a minority, according to an analysis of new census figures by The New York Times.

The American Community Survey, released this month by the Census Bureau, found that 49.7 percent, or 55.2 million, of the nation's 111.1 million households in 2005 were made up of married couples -- with and without children -- just shy of a majority and down from more than 52 percent five years earlier.

The numbers by no means suggests marriage is dead or necessarily that a tipping point has been reached. The total number of married couples is higher than ever, and most Americans eventually marry. But marriage has been facing more competition. A growing number of adults are spending more of their lives single or living unmarried with partners, and the potential social and economic implications are profound.

''It just changes the social weight of marriage in the economy, in the work force, in sales of homes and rentals, and who manufacturers advertise to,'' said Stephanie Coontz, director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, a nonprofit research group. ''It certainly challenges the way we set up our work policies.''

While the number of single young adults and elderly widows are both growing, Professor Coontz said, ''we have an anachronistic view as to what extent you can use marriage to organize the distribution and redistribution of benefits.''

Humans, like neanderthals and chimpanzees live in groups. Male-female couples exist within the larger group. If there are problems in the larger group such as political or economic then they will inevitably affect couples. The absence of a national childcare program may lead to people postponing marriage and reproduction. In addition couples that have a combined income below a certain number are more likely to break-up.

Without looking at issues from an evolutionary biology point of view
it is not really possible to see humans or any other species in the proper context.

Which, if even true, could be a commentary or evidence of just about anything. At which point I defer and largely agree with Ranbir;

Or there could be any number of even other effecting circumstances, be they temporary or more long term in nature. Couples and child rearing choices are not phenomenon which can exist in isolation from the surrounding material or social/official and unofficial attitudinal realities, contributing to or discouraging child rearing, marriage, bourgeois "self-fulfillment" notions etc.. And much of post war reality that emerged with the baby boomers and the "prosperity capitalism period" was decidedly anti-children, and hetero-sexual relationship encouraging, while more career, alternative relationship (in the narrowest sense) and "self-fulfillment" hedonism oriented.

In short, it was a period of unquestioned "bourgeois" ideas and attitude domination, only now beginning to show signs of breaking down, at least amongst middle and lower working class strata. i,e The Great Unwashed.

We live in hope Coyote. Amongst the washed, unwashed and otherwise - at least based upon my own highly unscientific survey - I see no indication of a rebirth of interest in traditional marriage.

Rutgers may be right, but I doubt it.

Hi murdock, etc.

Actually, we're not married. We're not common-law either. My live-in boyfriend is a lawyer and we were careful to make sure we wouldn't become a common law couple based only on how long we've cohabitated. It can easily be done. Whitman's book goes into very useful specifics for American readers who are interested in the legality of it all. For BC residents, some useful information is available on the following website:

http://www.familylaw.lss.bc.ca/subjectareas/commonlaw.asp

I think there is, at least amongst those young, especially women, known to me, a still dominant desire to marry. And I have seen official figures which show that in this country at least, most folks by considerable are still in formally "married" relationships. But I wouldn't want to bet the bank on whether or not that is the dominant trend everywhere. (Women seem to still want it more than men, in my contrarian observation. Men seemed to take "the pill" and the "formal appearance" of women's liberation claims as a "liberating" signal for themselves too. Which has likely been overlooked by many. And they have taken it as an indicator as well, that for many of them, they need not take any responsibility for the young, and women are fully capable of looking after themselves. And the large numbers of single mothers about in food banks and such, would seem to bear this out as well.

Bourgeois morality, where everyone looks after themselves, at least, now reigns supreme in even male-female sexual relations.)

Though there is much unhappiness and self-destruct behaviors out there too, on both parts, it seems to me. And most couples in this country, according to statistics which I recently saw, unlike perhaps the US, which I have already indicated, ARE in heterosexual, formally married relationships. It is still the dominant form.

That said, the human herd could likely stand, from a number of different perspectives, a good cull of its numbers. It might certainly release some of the pressure on the natural systems of nature-, in the absence of conscious policy to reduce numbers and change human economic behaviours. Indeed, in certain parts of the world, and amongst certain social profile "types", even within advanced capitalist states, it might be said that a cull of the species is already well underway, even here, as one of the consequences of this Neoconservative Capitalism period, human over-population and the accumulative effect of greed and individual "wealth" expectations.

Advanced capitalism, no doubt, produces an advanced economic machine, with its own needs and wants, and capacity to rape the natural world of its resources, and leave depletion and devastation, in everything from fish to the very weather itself, in its wake.

Which, of course, also too has an effect on the sense of well being and surety of the future that quite likely plays a part in whether males and females want to fux like little minx or not.

Ehhh, it's a big hole and a seriously fuked up world we have created for ourselves, probably by tolerating capitalism as our social and economic model for too long already, and the prospects are that this isn't about to change anytime soon. In fact. there are more and more capitalist societies coming on stream everywhere everyday, and with the same material expectation set. They want all the stuff we expect as well. More and more of it, with more and more bells and whistles.

Which is the social reality world in which one contemplates one's breeding intentions, and whether or not one actually wants or thinks it worthwhile to bring kids into.

That said, all recent studies and surveys which have been published on the subject say, we hetero married couples are actually getting way more sex than you so-called "free singles." So something is said in these very recently released studies about where the actual compatible environment is for shaggin'-, as opposed to just wankin' and vibratin' oneself silly.

ok jenselk,

you win, you two really are 'just shacking up'.

For the 'potential' sake I certainly hope you two are using the same concern for/about birth control...

Which, of course, also too has an effect on the sense of well being and surety of the future that quite likely plays a part in whether males and females want to fux like little minx or not.

Hey Coyote, good comments on an interesting topic bro…

If we build an insecure future, and an unhealthy world, because of our own lack of health on many levels, in our discontent, we are too affected in our natural "fux like little minx" ways as humans. (Hey, you said it first):-) There is no part of being human that does not get affected by the world we have created and live in.

On the subject of marriage, lots of live-in's, but I too believe marriage (hetero) is still alive and well. But important for all to create a healthier Earth to allow us and many other species to live fully as we were intended to live...

Peace brother Coyote, :-)

Bear

"lots of live-in's"...just a small point, this was intended generally not personally.
:-)
Bear

I can't say it is totally shocking that all the so-called "experts" on the subject of sinful living are from south of the border. Surely there is 1 expert from Canada?
Anyhow, my female cohort up there, Danielle E, spewed out some grin-inspiring comments. I think we can't separate the raison d'etre of the function of marriage pre-suffrage and now. Men and women served entirely different niches in society - and the committed union was as much a business contract as a document validating the existence of a newly minted family unit. One earned the dough, the other prepared it for dinner and raised the kids. Because women were dependendent on their husbands for existence, they became an extension of his identity (hence the change in the last name). This very basis assured that marriage was the only real way to ensure society stayed functional.
Now, we have two individuals - whether they fancy themselves or not - without these outside forces ensuring they walk the isle before "cohabitating" - and we also have an equally high rate of divorce because both individuals grow and don't need the other to survive. We are shuffling towards a new definition of what makes a family. I think we are now trying to find the glue which will serve strong enough a bond to keep everyone together. Stats will be confusing because there is no one movement - there is a hodge podge of working units and there won't be a one size fits all model.

I guess this represents the sewer of liberalism, and the exposure of the left who support the negative and destructive visions of family life.
There is still as much strength in traditional Mom/Dad/Kid thing as there ever was. I don't know why this institution has been deemed redundant and perhaps evil, but the world always continues to turn, and I'm sure the family will survive. It's has to, right? Oh, so sorry, I forgot that many of you think mankind should be eliminated for the good of all of us.

You don't have to sign a piece of paper to be legally married. Live with a person for 1 year and that is your spouse. A spouse is then treated as being married and if one of you decides to walk and it lands in court you are treated as a married couple as if you had signed on the dotted line.
I think marriage is coming back since year 2000.
DO YOU THINK CRAZY GLUE WILL WORK?

Danielle,

Now that was funny! Anyway, not at all if the guy is able to think of a woman as an individual. Which Bloom movies are we talking about exactly? Kingdom of Heaven? No problem then, love those battle scenes :-)

Ron Erwin,

No, to paraphrase my friend clubofrome, I think mankind should realize the only reason its here is to take care of dolphins, the real jewel of this planet. Only if we can't do that should we be eliminated.

Yes Jennifer, you are wrong. Apparently you have misunderstood the statistics.

In fact, your description of the Rutgers story

is consistent with the NYTimes quote by Alcibiades.

So we are not falling behind, and not even being gained on from behind. It's just that as we coast on by the marrieds our share of the population, while still increasing at their expense, is not increasing as rapidly as before. But how could it? It can never go above 100%. It may even be levelling off at something not much more than 50% of all couples, but nothing in either article suggests that it is declining.

I don't know if you are also wrong about not being married yourself, but would actually like to know what provision of the BC family law saves you from that status (and don't want to have to open and read the whole of a multi-page pdf to find out). So I would appreciate a clarification if you can provide it (although in my own case I am sure the issue has long been moot).

Ask Borat
Jack Layton was taking notes.

(Orlando Bloom ??? The Errol Flynn wannabee ? )

Some of the posts made with respect to this story are ridiculous. I'm talking about two types of objectionable comments.

First, those disagreeing with the author on whether or not she is married. It's one thing to not take what she's written as the definitive legal situation, but to assert, without knowing anything about how she and her partner live, and without any sort of indication of having done external research (which the author and/or her partner have apparently done), that she's wrong carries no weight.

For those who are saying that the author is married, I'd like to see what support you have for those assertions - that any people living together for a year are treated as having "signed on the line" of a marriage contract. I find that idea ridiculous - the idea that a court would impose a whole contract (since that is apparently what a marriage is, according to above posts) on two people who don't want to be in a contract.

But to baldly say that the author (who again, has apparently looked into the matter) is wrong, and that you are confident your view is right, only makes you seem ignorant and abraisive. Admitting so, and admitting that you couldn't be bothered to open a PDF file, let alone read a book, to become educated on the subject, just confirms ignorance and arrogance. And frankly, I'd encourage the author not to educate alqpr on the subject. Someone too lazy to bother reading a PDF file doesn't deserve to be taught.

There are more examples of that ignorance, though. For example, alqpr's assertion that the author misunderstood the statistics she was working with. Given a quick glance, it becomes clear that it is he who has misunderstood. The author clearly states in the article that while pre-marital cohabitation is "still on the rise", the rate at which it is increasing is lessening, and possibly nearing a plateau. She also states that while marriage rates are decreasing, the rate at which they are doing so is decreasing, possibly also because they are nearing a plateau. This does not suggest that both types of co-habitation are happening half the time, or anything near that. Just that the proportions of both may be reaching equilibrium, or moving toward a reversal of recent trends. There is nothing above to refute that idea.

The second vein of comments goes beyond the point of arrogance, and right into offensiveness. Personal comments about whether you think the author is "right" to live in pre-marital co-habitation with her partner reeks of the smug sense of superiority that people have when judging the lives of others, in an area where there is no single right and no single wrong. I wonder what gives the users who so commented the right to, without knowing what the author's situation is, the right to arrive at a conclusion as to whether how she structures her home life is "right" or "wrong". And how they might delude themselves into thinking that their ignorant opinions are worthy of even the barest of consideration.

Worse still is Murdock's comments, which fall even shorter of the standard of intelligent discourse that people seem to be trying so hard to have here. To think that because the author writes for a living, that you have a right to comment on her sex life, is vulgar. Though the language of his post may be a little more sophisticated, it's the same message as a child in a playground upset over looking foolish would convey: "Okay, you might be right, but I'm smarter than you!" And resorting to an attack based on sexual practices to do so.

This is a great topic, and worthy of debate, but the self-righteous and ignorant posts that appear above (and no, not all the posts are that), cheapen and worsen it. Particularly the personal and offensive, pointless retort of Murdock, once it was shown that he has less of an idea about what he was talking about than he would have originally had us believe.

Thanks on the additional info Jennifer. I'm working through this doc (a commitment in itself!) and found out that the six-month living together cut-off is incorrect, according to the doc, it's two years. I've also heard anecdotally that unless there are specific contracts written up around possessions and finances, a common-law arrangement doesn't guarantee 50-50 splits. So, if you hit the year-and-a-half mark and are concerned about these issues, a common-law prenup would be a good idea.

Frank: Thanks for weighing in.

Maestro: Orlando was just an example and a reference to the idea that while it's easy to do a home-sweep for porn, it's impossible to spot-check the contents of a mate's mind. Not yet anyway! I meant no offence to Orlando Bloom or the implications of serious addictions.(Batteries not included.)

Injecting a cock-eyed romantic element to this whole debate, I think it's an endearing if also incredibly puzzling aspect of human nature that people continue to commit, however they choose to do it, even if hearts, bank accounts and book collections have already been pillaged once or many times over.

What was that old saying?

Second marriages are proof that hope trumps experience every time.

When two people stand up in front of their entire respective families and all of their significant friends, not to mention the places of honour in the wedding party, and before a representative of the state (either civil or religious) and make solemn vows to one another of exclusivity and permanence, and are regarded by everyone in society as "husband" and "wife" (the flaccid term "partner") clearly that is far different from cohabitation, a pale imitation of the real thing. Cohabitation is counterfeit marriage, and men who expect women to cohabit exhibit, in my opinion, immaturity, selfishness, disrespect for themselves, their partner, their families and society in general, and a lack of honour.

Wow... I don't think I'm EVER going to get what all the fuss is about. WHY do so many women want to get married, Coyote? (in your opinion, more women than men). Could someone PLEASE tell me what ALL THE FUSS IS ABOUT??!!

I completely agree that partner is a lame term. Boyfriend sounds a bit childish and my attempts to get the tag man-friend going have failed. I was told to go with "lover" but that sounds a bit weird and smug. Thanks to Dolphin, I now have a great new way to introduce my closest friend to others: Hey Grandma, I'd like you to meet my Pale Imitation Of The Real Thing. Or, PIRT for brevity's sake.

Fii,

Could be-, only because you don't know what you're missing? :-)

And nobody here is saying, not me, that you even have to or have to want to get married. If "the spirit" ain't there, better to leave it to those what got it anyway.

It's mostly just been a historically evolved social tool to create a secure environment for making babies, I would say, which [extended processes U]can/may[/U] even create a foundation for something beyond that.

Though certainly there is a fair legion of mysandrous ladies, some of whom I have met personally, who see more sinister implications to the institution. And no doubt, like everything humans do and create, it sure as hell ain't perfect or without its dark side. And about the same ones as seen by mysoginist males. Both Legions which exist as we speak.

While Dolphin wrote...

Or it could be lust. :-) Which is fair. At least he wouldn't be completely devoid of feeling, which is probably the actual material basis of love-, certainly in the case of hetero men and women. Wellll, for sure men. :-) I mean, ya really gotta wanna get it on, preferably sooner rather than later-, not only to make those babies but to wanna even hang out together and raise the wee blighters. :-) Especially in the early going. :-)

Certainly if "lust" isn't there, you wouldn't have anything concrete to build on, I would say. Might as well live with your brother or sister. Lust is the real initial glue that binds-, just in my flawed male experience, mind. 8-D lol

And the Mrs tells me, for women too. She says she would have never even considered marrying me, if I didn't really want to even screw her. (Of which there was little danger, with or without a ring. And it had nothing to do with disrespect or dishonour, but lust in the main vein of the beast.)

Coyote, you suffer from green division, and your argumentation is laughable. Your envy/jealousy of the footloose and fancy-free is transparent. Could it be that you subconsciously desire to be unattached? In any event, you best spare the rest of us and climb back up on the wifey...we don't wanna see your fat ass on the dance floor. lol!

;-)

Relax Heyeena,

Can we not have a raw, straight-up conversation with friends without being accused of crap, especially in such a suggestive, rude and unnecessary way??

I think you yourself are somewhat tied up and lacking a sense of search, flow and freedom, when it comes to jamming with the rest of us. Chiiilllll out bro...

Peace,:-)

Bear

Why buy the cow when you can milk it free.
I agree.

Love perhaps?

If all you're getting married for is to have sex... Its not really that hard, people can get that without a big ceremony and stuff.

In the words of Rhodes scholar, actor and singer Kris Kristopherson:

Busted flat in Baton Rouge, waitin' for a train
And I's feelin' near as faded as my jeans
Bobby thumbed a diesel down just before it rained
It rode us all the way into New Orleans
I pulled my harpoon out of my dirty red bandana
I's playin' soft while Bobby sang the blues, yeah
Windshield wipers slappin' time, I's holdin' Bobby's hand in mine
We sang every song that driver knew, yeah

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose
Nothin' don't mean nothin' hon' if it ain't free, no no
And feelin' good was easy, Lord, when he sang the blues
You know, feelin' good was good enough for me
Good enough for me and my Bobby McGee

From the Kentucky coal mine to the California sun
There Bobby shared the secrets of my soul
Through all kinds of weather, through everything we done
Yeah, Bobby baby kept me from the cold
One day up near Salinas, Lord, I let him slip away
He's lookin' for that home and I hope he finds it
But I'd trade all o' my tomorrows for one single yesterday
To be holdin' Bobby's body next to mine

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose
Nothin', that's all that Bobby left me, yeah
But if feelin' good was easy, Lord, when he sang the blues
Hey, feelin' good was good enough for me, mm-hmm
Good enough for me and my Bobby McGee

One of my fave songs, that one :)

I guess some of us just have less need for "secure environments"...and that's ok.

There is lots of people that live together and raise a family without getting married.

With the divorce rate at (give or take) 50%, what's the point of marriage (except to give rednecks apoplexy when same sex couple get married)?

http://www.cbc.ca/programguide/program/index.jsp?program=The+Debaters
Anyone catch this?

Ranbir:

Not according to Hollywood's finest...........

First few weeks, Rick W, they called it the Master Debators. Maybe there were complaints?

I've heard a couple of them, missed the one on Friday though.

I think where marriage becomes important is when it comes to children. When I was teaching, there was a certain scenario I saw played out many times. A little one would come and excitedly introduce me to his/her new "Dad"... or to Joe or Brad.. or Marilee or whomever. Now the little one was always hanging on for dear life to this new person in his/her life..finally thinking he/she was going to have a real family, be loved and taken care of. Meanwhile, not always, (but often enough to be truly painful to watch) you knew Joe or Brad or Merilee were there just to bed the little one's Mom or Dad for awhile. Six, seven months down the road, Joe or Merrilee would be gone and as a teacher you would notice that same child become suddenly hyperactive and somewhat lost in class..."all at sea" would be a good description. School work on a roller coaster just like his/her life. By the time the school trackmeet came along a guy named Sam would be introduced as the new Dad or "friend".

To have to deal with the complexities of relationships is hard enough when you are an adult but when you're very young it must be devastating... to have to deal with the lost and found aspect of so-called love and to be continually abandoned by it. When you are very young this has to take its toll...so shacking up and marriage ain't just about adults.

When it comes to the grand passion...to love itself, even to what love is, I have even fewer answers. It's often very complicated and often very simple... and damn it, it's usually when you least expect it.

Marriage is often described in terms of conventionality or security...but really I think it's more about those who enjoy the challenge of a long distance run. ;-)And in saying that I don't think distance running is or should be for everyone..or that you even have to make the finish line...just that it is its own kind of adventure, sometimes with its own kind of benefits...which should not be so easily overlooked. But I'm not promoting anything...to each his own....just choose the right kind of sneakers for the right kind of race. ;-)

In other words, there are no answers people. No one wants to judge, and no one wants to offend. Divorce and abortion are accepted, as are equal rights. Most people agree that marriage is for the production of children. 65% of British Columbians not only don't believe in God, they don't even believe He exists. (If I offended anyone by capitalizing the H, I am sorry). So what do we do - muddle on, I guess. Hell, I even read young women today are distancing themselves from feminism because they don't want to wind up alone and childless, how do ya like them apples? Should a couple divorce if they no longer love each other - even if they have kids? I don't have the answer. I have a bias, for sure, and it's conservative. Personally I'd love it if women stayed at home and never pursued a career. On the other hand this could only happen if men made enough to take care of their families, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. In fact, I have a sinking feeling my children will be serving french fries to the Chinese...

I'm not offended by the capital H, Hyeena, but by the lack of a capital S before the H.
"I even read young women today are distancing themselves from feminism because they don't want to wind up alone and childless"- please explain what being childfree and "alone" - (meaning what? lonely? Alone does not equal lonely) have to do with feminism. The women you speak of are sadly uneducated. Newsflash- plenty of married women with children are feminists. Go figure!!
Also, Hyeena, I'd like to know why you'd "love it if (all women on the planet?) stayed at home and never pursued a career"? This is obviously about control (if you're a man) and idiocy if you're a woman.

Oh and Hyeena, Wo ye zhidao wei shnme ni shuo "I have a sinking feeling my children will be serving fries to the Chinese"?
translation: I also want to know why you say"....."
Are you racist as well as sexist?

hummmmm, good points Fii. Well Hyeena, are you....????

Bear

Am I sexist/racist? I don't know, but I believe the vast swath of North Americans are a forgiving lot. If I see cheerleaders at a football game, will I stop and stare? You betcha. Did Bill Clinton have a weakness for women? Probably, but his achievements are remembered, and most people could care less of his personal life. Women still want to be beautiful, why else would they put on make-up? The reason make-up is worn is to attract males, correct? The reason males are sought is for marriage and children, correct? We are lusty, vainglorious beasts - not 'correct'- nor will we ever be. So my advice to women is: use your assets, your curves, your eyes, your magic. Be careful with the career, and know what you want. If you want children you can have them, but don't kid yourself. If you forget how to be a woman and don't want to act like a woman, your man won't stick around. Even with all your new-found rights and freedoms you can wind up worse off than your grandmother! Ironic, huh?

Oh and P.S. - skip the hyphenated last name and referring to your husband as 'partner'. There's a sure-fire way to wind up spending Christmas alone. OOPS!!! I meant 'Winter Festivities', not Christmas... sorry!

Thanks for answering the first part of the question, Hyeena- now for the second- so, are you racist, too?

I'm not racist, but let's be honest: chinks really do have small cocks. Whenever I'm in a locker room, I secretly compare width and girth, and my member has consistently been larger than my Asian counterparts...

"Idiot" confirmed...nough' said.

Bear

We're still waiting for an honest response to the article from Fii and Bear. We want something from your guts, not a PC - "oh, I don't want to judge" -chickenshit response. What say you, should people shack up before marriage or not? Answer the damn question, biotch.

I couldn't care less if people shack up or get married, or live alone or in a commune... to each her/his own.

BTW, that stereotype is bullshit; trust me.

the question isn't should people shack up OR get married, it's should people shack up BEFORE getting married. It's a simple question, and it demands a response. Why does it demand a response? Because we live in a society of laws whether you like it or not and marriage is NOT private, it is public. You can be cavalier on your own time Fii, but you can't evade the question here. If you can't understand the question, say so. But taking no stand is cowardice. If you want to get your nose pierced you can, it's a free society. You may even get a rose tattoo on your ankle (haven't seen that before). Hell, you can even attend every Take Back the Night vigil from now on. But you can never never never be vacuous.

You may go back to celebrating winter solstice now. Peace out.

It's amazing how many people assume that common law marriage exists everywhere. It's actually such a prevelant myth that people get very screwed by it in Quebec, where NO it does NOT exist.

Personally, I am less interested in whether someone has registered their lover with the state and more interested in how they relate to one another and what their personal goals for their relationship are. I wish the state would remove itself from marital legislation altogether. There can be lesiglation for parenting and such but we don't need to register with the state because of our relationships. It seems intrusive to me.

That said, I am happily married. Most days. But ironically one of the reasons we chose marriage was because of his profession (a lawyer). Lawyers, especially in his field, get sued a lot. This just makes our lives easier in case that ever happens. It has nothing to do with our level of commitment to one another.

Well said wkh...I agree.

Hyeena, you ask me my opinion on live-in situations vs. marriage. I'll share...I think sometimes marriages happen to aid credibility to a relationship in the eyes of family, children of previous marriages, or even aid credibility for one or both of the people involved. This is understandable imo, but call it for what it is...people pleasing, insecure…whatever. The importance of marriage imo, does not trump the importance of the sacred agreement written on the hearts of the couple involved. State involvement does not have any value or serve any purpose in the sacred area or the heart, as it only provides a formality, that’s all. I must say however, the waters get a wee muddy when religion gets involved. :- )

Peace,

Bear

To Lynn:

Very insightful comments re: the children, my compliments.

Teachers must have a fascinating perspective in their priveleged position to see the daily dynamics in a child's life. Some of it must be painful to watch and to see it all unfold like a soap opera.

In a "reducto ad absurdum" argument, perhaps the "offical union " issue has bottomed out to simply a DNA TEST as the either/ or document.

In other words, once a child has been produced, all sorts of legal dynamics (ie responsibilites and obligations on par with a legal union )kick in and come into play ,REGARDLESS of whether one has (i)officially married (ii) shacked up /common -law (iii) or a one- night stand.

Other than that, GOV'TS have basically reduced "marriage" to a business partnership with a final dispensation of the IMpersonal physical assets put in place " when the partnership dissolves " according to the Law ,....and in front of a judge if need be. "Love" is purely a subjective term in the GOV'T scheme of things.

I will also add that if one lives the single life without any "legal Gov't sanctioned commitment to a 2nd party " , and one passes on without any next of kin...nor any final Will or Testament..the Gov't is effectively your spouse...ie they get E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G .

what if you spend everything before you die?

oh and one other thing: the government is not a separate entity - it is YOU AND ME.

Hyeena

Actually, Congrats,...I left that " Gov't = YOU and ME " quantification hanging ambiguously, as I was tempted to go full circle and point that out specifically.

That's why it IS important to have a WILL ... or spend it before ones passes on. Many people have NO idea of what a mess it can be if one dies without such a legal document in place.

Then again, THEY, GOV'T, "act in our best interest" meets "trust us" mode..Lord knows where it actually ends up (aka "pissed away" in less coded language).

In the bigger scheme of things, " GOV'T " is simply a " Vulture-in Waiting ", balancing (i) the VOTES gained by tweaking such societal concepts as the definition of marriage and (ii) the $$$ Tax Grab when the "i"'s aint' dotted and/or the "t"'s not crossed.