As You Like It - Men Becoming Women

Then file for divorce, because:

So?

Jerk: "I CAN HAS ANAL SEX?"
Her: "NOES!"
Jerk: "Then you is not my wife!"
Her: "YAY!"

Though, you know, I don't think the state has any right to even make that distinction.

Um, Jig, with that attitude, I don't think "getting a husband" is something you'll have to worry much about.

Jus sayin'

seriously, I think every woman should have a room of her own. I have never be enamoured with teh idea of actually sharing a bed with anyone - women or man. Anyway, this sleeping with a man is so middleclass.

Maybe not, but that made me really laugh.

thanks Brenda! - but its so true. Seriously - take a look at teh man next to you next time you sleep. Trust me - tehy are NO Mel Gibson. And snuffles and wobbles and smells. Then they get up in teh night and pee on teh bathroom floor. EW. Talk about "sleeping with teh enemy"; its enough to put you off sex. And I dont want his cold hand between my legs in middle of night. Like a damp rubber glove. All that "spoon" stuff. No thanks!
Honestly I send them home whenever I can or else tehy get a guest room; "See you tomorrow for lunch. Yes. Bye now. Take care, its cold outside!" slam of door, gates closed and locked. He'll be back, trust me.
talk about things your Gran never taught you!

I stood at an urinal next to Mel Gibson in a Malibu restaurant once (at my gf's suggestion! LOL) and I have to report that I understand why he *had* to go to the USA to get famous.

Pep (because he wasn't very big Down Under!)

Was it fun?

I am not surprised that you are put off men if *that* is the sort of men you have historically attracted. I am beginning to feel sorry for you now, much to my chagrin.

Pep (You have intimated previously that your experience has not been entirely non-commercial though, haven't you?)

It was probably upsetting for him.

Pep (Chuffed, myself!)

If I am understanding your position correctly, it is primarily that you find the use of the word 'marriage' to be reserved for religious unions, regardless of the fact that the concept of 'marriage' predates every Christian religion out there, including your own.

But fine, since words don't make a true personal union, you can have the word 'marriage'.

What I find offensive and discriminatory is the idea that I am restricted from certain social and financial luxuries afforded persons who are 'married' simply because selfish Christians want to hold the word 'marriage' as beyond the reach of people who do not share their religious convictions, even as they stretch the boundaries of those religious convictions for their own personal beliefs everyday.

If you took away every tax break, bank authorization form, hospital restriction on 'family' admittance into critical care units, housing breaks and benefits afforded only to 'married' people by realtors, and all of the myriad social and financial benefits reserved for 'married' people, you could have your silly 'marriage' word all to yourself.

But that's not the way this country has set up the institution of 'marriage' and if you tell me that 'marriage' is strictly religious and religion defines 'marriage' as outside of the possiblity of homosexuals, then I will cry for the bigotry and discrimination that religion has placed on me for exercising my Constitutional right of freeing myself from all religious trappings.

I have the right to not be Christian or religious at all. I have the right to be a homosexual. Why does exercising those rights mean I have to relinquish the same benefits Christians or any religious person receives from being in a what you profess to be strictly a religious union? How is that fair? How is that not discrimination or bigotry? And why does this country, founded in part on the principles of religious freedom, allow its citizens to burden such discrimination and bigotry in their pursuit of true religious freedom (which for me means no religion at all)?

I accept that if I am not a Christian or religious person I cannot be 'married' as a religious union. I do not accept that I am made a second class citizen of this country and freely discriminated against because I have exercised my rights to NOT be religious and to be openly homosexual.

I don't want to step on your religion. Can you kindly get your religion to stop stepping all over me?

Again, you are wrong. In Colorado, you can only use non-consummation as a reason for divorce or annulment if the party is physically incapable of consummating the marriage and the other party did not know it at the time of marriage. In Colorado, you are "married" as soon as:
1) everyone signs the marriage license and it is filed with the state
OR
2) the couple presents themselves to the public as man and wife in any way (this is a common law marriage basis and is upheld here).





BTW - do you actually ever do research before you make these sweeping claims or do you just always assume that the entire world is exactly the same as your little piece of it?


Also, is you favorite color 'clear'?

You don't happen to actually believe that you are a beauty in the middle of your sleep, do you? And you probably snuffle and smell and wake up with bad breath. I also am pretty sure that my freezing toes are far worse between his legs than his maybe cold hands between mine. Hell, I am almost always cold when I go to bed and cannot get enough of that yucky spoon stuff to warm me up.

Hey Lil, you sound like my wife . . .

Pep ( . . . used to)

The whole business about what the Bible or Christians believe marriage to be, is simply a matter of belief, not of fact.

How does marriage predate every Christian religion out there?

Of course, not, the word "catholic" means "universal" so doing research into how the universe actually works is heretical.

The bible says so? Or don't you count the Old Testament?

If all forms of sexual intercourse are the same (equal) then how does the law define consummation via sexual intercourse?

YES!!! And in many areas of my life.

The largest problem is that 'marriage' has a meaning to many religions but is used for many non-religious things in this country (i.e, the financial and benefits aspects).

Personally, I think that we should just let the religions keep 'marriage' and use it as they see fit, and that for all non-religious uses we should ALL have 'civil unions'.

Film at eleven!

In most of my posts I've said each state has their own right to set marriage laws as long as not extreme, such as incest.

And I'm going with the majority of states in my posts as I think only 5-7 states recognize common law marriage, but if you are truly common law married you have consummated, otherwise you are merely roommates.

Judaism:
"For over 2000 years Jewish law has required that every husband present his wife, at the time of their marriage, with a marriage contract or ketubbah, guaranteeing the wife's financial rights in case of the husband's death or divorce. Over generations, various local customs found their way into the legal text of the ketubbah and ketubbah decorations reflected the Jewish art of each locality and period. Ketubbot are therefore a rich source of material on Jewish history, customs and art. The fact that, as legal documents, ketubbot contain exact dates and place names allows their absolute identification with specific communities and periods. "

From the Jewish National University and Library
http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/ketubbot/

Ancient Rome:
"The consequences of marriage were —

1. The power of the father over the children of the marriage, which was a completely new relation, an effect indeed of marriage, but one which had no p742influence over the relation of the husband and wife. [Patria Potestas.]
2. The liabilities of either of the parties to the punishments affixed to the violation of the marriage union. [Adulterium; Divortium.]
3. The relation of husband and wife with respect to property, to which head belong the matters of Dos, Donatio inter virum et uxorem, Donatio propter nuptias, &c. Many of these matters, however, are not necessary consequences of marriage, but the consequence of certain acts which are rendered possible by marriage.

In the later Roman history we often read of marriage contracts which have reference to Dos, and generally to the relation of husband and wife viewed with reference to property. A title of the Digest (23 4) treats De Pactis Dotalibus, which might be made either before or after marriage.

The Roman notion of marriage was this: — it is the union of male and female, a consortship for the whole of life, the inseparable consuetude of life, an intercommunion of law, sacred and not sacred (Dig. 23 tit. 2 s.1). But it is not meant that marriage was to this extent regulated by law, for marriage is a thing which is, to a great extent, beyond the domain of law. The definition or description means that there is no legal separation of the interests of husband and wife in such matters in which the separation would be opposed to the notion of marriage. Thus the wife had the sacra, the domicile, and the rank of the husband. Marriage was established by consent, and continued by dissent; for the dissent of either party, when formally expressed, could dissolve the relation. [Divortium.] "

From the University of Chicago
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Matrimonium.html

Ancient Greece:
"In the seventh year of the reign of Alexander the son of Alexander, in the fourteenth year of the satrapship of Ptolemy, in the month of Dios.

Contract of marriage of Herakleides and Demetria.

Herakleides, a free man, takes Demetria, a free woman of Cos, as his legitimate wife from her father Leptines of Cos and from her mother Philotis, bringing clothing and jewelry (worth) 1000 drachmas. Let Herakleides provide to Demetria everything pertaining to a free wife.

(They said), "We shall (reside) in the same place wherever Leptines and Herakleides, deciding together in joint decision, decide." If Demetria is discovered doing any evil to the shame of her husband Heraklides, let her be deprived of everything she brought (to the marriage); but let Herkleides prove whatever he sues Demetria about before three men on whom they both agree.

Herakleides shall not be permitted to bring in another woman as an outrage to Demetria, nor have children by another woman, nor deal deceitfuly in any way on any pretense, Herakleides against Demetria. If Herakleides is discovered doing any of these things and Demetria proves it before three men whom they both designate, Herakleides shall return the dowry of 1000 drachmas to Demetria which she brought and let him indemnify her in addition with 1000 drachmas of the silver (coinage) of Alexander. Let the execution be upon Herakleides himself and upon all the property of Herakleides, both on land and sea, for Demetria and those executing along with Demetria, as if from litigation legally completed.

This contract shall be valid in every respect everywhere, as if the covenant had been made there—wherever Herakleides may produce it against Demetria, or Demetria and those executing with Demetria may bring it out against Herakleides.

Herakleides and Demetria shall be in control, keeping their own contracts themselves and bringing them out against each other." (circa 310 BCE)
http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/elephmarr.html

There's lots more where that came from, and that's only "Western" society...

In YOUR opinion or definition of the phrase. The 'definition' of Common Law marriage here is " the parties mutual consent or agree to be husband and wife" and "present themselves as such publicly". There is nothing in there that says they have to have sex and I can find nothing in Colorado law that defines "husband and wife" as having to have sex. Marriage is what each couple want it to be, regardless of how the various religions wish to play with it.

Ancient Mesopotamia:
"Contract of Marriage, Sixth year of Nabonidus, 549 B.C.

This document is dated in the sixth year of Nabonidus, and is a good example of marriage with a dowry.

Nabu-nadin-akhi, son of Bel-akhi-iddin, son of Arad-Nergal, spoke to Shum-ukin, son of Mushallimu, saying, "Give as a wife Ina-Esaggil-banat, your daughter, the virgin, to Uballit-su-Gula, my son." Shum-ukin hearkened to him, and gave Ina-Esaggil-banat, his virgin daughter, to Uballit-su-Gula, his son. He gave to Nabu-nadin-akhi one mana of money, Latubashinni, Ina-silli-biti-nakhat, Tasli-mu, and the outfit for a house with Ina-Esaggil-banat, his daughter, as her dowry. Shum-ukin has given to Nabu-nadin-akhi Nana-kishirat, his slave toward the one mana of money of the dowry, instead of two-thirds of a mana of money, at the full price. Shum-ukin will pay to Nabu-nadin-akhi one-third of a mana of money, the balance of one mana, and he shall receive his dowry completed to one mana in what it lacks. "
Fordham University
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/Mesopotamia-Contracts.html#Marriage