|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Should there be love and marriage for all people (over legal age)?

Default Should there be love and marriage for all people (over legal age)?

September 4th, 2007, 19:12
Originally Posted by Ubereil View Post
I agree. However: if this is the case, then why do you rule out homosexual marriage?

Übereil
Because I believe that it hurts the children, must be my most important reason.
I do believe they have the right to live together and even make civil contracts binding them together as long as they don't have children, but that is mostly what marriage is for.
First to show your love for one another, but also to have children know they have parents behind them, both a mother and a father to teach them.


(1) Would you be ready to apply the same standard to a multiple-person civil solidarity contract? That is, not outlawed, but harder to get? If not, why not?
What do you mean by multiple-person civil solidarity contract ?

(2) Do you believe that life for children is necessarily worse following a divorce than inside an unhappy, loveless couple? If so, why?
No, I don't, but I believe people shouldn't get married on the flick of the moment, but build a relationship before marrying. If you mind extreme examples tell me, but look at all those celebrities out there, then count all the divorces. I think Mrs. Spears is about 25 yrs old and married thrice already. Being together for two months doesn't mean you'll want to be together for the rest of your lives. In modern society this is what is happening; people meeting people, going on a date or two, then marrying, sometimes even have a kid and then divorce.
I believe that is bad, but if people really are unhappy and have tried to work things out after years of marriage and they see their children suffering from it, then this would be the part where the divorce would be accepted.

Now all you have to do is contact a lawyer who draws up copies of a paper, changes the names and asks people to sign them. He then gets money for it.

(1) Do you believe that divorce necessarily ruins your life and the lives of your children? If so, I believe I could produce evidence to debunk this belief — that is, pretty well-adjusted adults whose parents divorced.
Not always, but I know for sure it doesn't make people happier and certainly not the children. And of course you can find examples of people who got adjusted to it, that's how the human brain works, it tries adjusting itself to different situations. It still doesn't mean it is a good thing. Well-adjusted also means they had a bad time during the divorce, this alone is enough for me to spare children of that.
I even know someone whose father committed suicide and he's well adjusted and he's studying for his Bachelor now. It doesn't mean what happened didn't affect him. It did, but his brain is trying to adjust to the situation.

You said that we're talking about men marrying a lot of women. As far as I can tell, you're the only one on this thread doing this.
Oh, I said "we" as I was talking about it, yes. I actually meant 'on' or 'men' in French and Dutch respectively, but I don't know the correct translation for that in English. It means 'we', but in general. It's translated as one on babelfish in the sense that: One might say…
Sorry for the confusion, I should have used 'One' but I didn't know (or rather forgot) I could use it like that in English.

Certainly I see a problem with the children. I just don't see that the problem is necessarily any greater than with serial polygamy (i.e., divorce and remarriage).
It is because it is a constant factor as in normal marriages a divorce shouldn't happen and that effect would be null. I'm for monogamy, not serial polygamy, as you may have noticed by me being against divorce.


Quite, but unless you can present some evidence showing that "trees are likely to fall," the slippery slope *is* a fallacy. You haven't; you've simply asserted this to be the case.
The example with trees is an example of the "slippery slope" being a fallacy. (Maybe you should reread it or take a look at the whole article on Wiki, as I think you might have misunderstood it.)
What I'm saying is that I prefer not to let event A : "The first tree to fall down", cause B : "have a 95% chance of letting another tree fall down" at all.
I prefer to stop event A before it even happens.

Big topic, but Wikipedia is a good place to start: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting ].
Okay, you mostly changed my mind about gay parenting.
Just give them civil contracts then to stay together and bind them forever (in sickness and in health )
There's only the problem of custody battles between same-sex couples. Who should the court favor if two fathers want to be with their child ?
(In opposite-sex marriage as I said, the court often rules in favor of the mother.)

I meant that questioning yourself and your parents is all part of growing up. Almost everybody does it.
I meant, questioning them in a bad and negative way. In who's my real father (if growing up with two mothers or vice versa) ? Or: Mom, are you my mom or is mom2 my mom ?

In my book, this treatment is in and of itself unfair. If the parents are unable to agree on custody arrangements, the courts should do their level best to determine which one can be the better parent, and give custody to them. Biological parenthood or gender should not enter into it at all.
Even though I agree with you, that's not how it's happening.

Long post, don't post too fast, I want some rest
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#61

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,038
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 19:51
I think the concept of marriage is a big deal. Marriage is important, because it can impact your life like no other decision you'll ever make. So it stands to reason that we should all expect our societies to treat it with respect and our governments to give careful consideration to laws pertaining to it.

There should be plenty of flexibility, tolerance and fairness in laws pertaining to marriage. That's in step with modern thinking, and it's just plain common sense.

But is that good enough? What if some guidelines clearly work better than others? Doesn't society have an obligation to promote happiness and well being? If some unions really are better than others, then shouldn't the best ones be encouraged?

That approach will never pass a litmus test. But when you think about all the billions of people who have experimented with marriage over the years, it's hard to ignore the common perception that some marriages are wonderful while some others aren't.

Oh, I wish I had a river I could skate away on. But it don't snow here. It stays pretty green. I'm going to make a lot of money, then I'm going to quit this crazy scene. — [Joni Mitchell]
Squeek is offline

Squeek

Squeek's Avatar
connoisseur of tidbits

#62

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,807

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 21:07
Originally Posted by Pladio View Post
What do you mean by multiple-person civil solidarity contract ?
What you call "marriage with more than two people." I'm trying my best to avoid using the term "marriage" here because of the religious baggage it carries; I want to make it clear that I'm only interested in the legal ramifications (in this context).



No, I don't, but I believe people shouldn't get married on the flick of the moment, but build a relationship before marrying.
In this context, I'm not interested in what you think people *should* or *shouldn't* do either. I'm interested in what you think people should be *allowed* to do.

Now all you have to do is contact a lawyer who draws up copies of a paper, changes the names and asks people to sign them. He then gets money for it.
You know, I know people who have gone through divorces. I've gone through a very painful break-up myself, once. I find that description of divorce very offensive — you clearly have no *clue* how hard it can be.

Not always, but I know for sure it doesn't make people happier and certainly not the children. And of course you can find examples of people who got adjusted to it, that's how the human brain works, it tries adjusting itself to different situations. It still doesn't mean it is a good thing. Well-adjusted also means they had a bad time during the divorce, this alone is enough for me to spare children of that.
Again: do you genuinely feel that, in general, a child is better off growing up in a home where the parents don't love each other but stay together anyway?

'Cuz I know people who have done just that, and many of them are badly broken because of it.

It is because it is a constant factor as in normal marriages a divorce shouldn't happen and that effect would be null. I'm for monogamy, not serial polygamy, as you may have noticed by me being against divorce.
About 50% of marriages today end in divorce. How does that make a "normal" marriage one that ends in death?

What you're doing here, Pladio, is taking your personal preferences and acting like they were the universal social norm. That would be as wrong as my taking my life experience and insisting that fifteen-year-olds experience alcohol poisoning at least once, and you have to have a minimum of 20 sexual partners before being allowed to marry. How would you like that?


The example with trees is an example of the "slippery slope" being a fallacy. (Maybe you should reread it or take a look at the whole article on Wiki, as I think you might have misunderstood it.)
What I'm saying is that I prefer not to let event A : "The first tree to fall down", cause B : "have a 95% chance of letting another tree fall down" at all.
I prefer to stop event A before it even happens.
No, Pladio, you're clearly the one who didn't understand it. But never mind.

Okay, you mostly changed my mind about gay parenting.
Just give them civil contracts then to stay together and bind them forever (in sickness and in health )
You can't do that. This is the Internet. You're supposed to stick by your original position no matter what (or bring up Hitler, your choice).

There's only the problem of custody battles between same-sex couples. Who should the court favor if two fathers want to be with their child ?
(In opposite-sex marriage as I said, the court often rules in favor of the mother.)
Which, IMO, is wrong. The courts should not favor either parent by default; they should do their best to find out which one is likely to do the job better, and award custody to them — gay or straight.

I meant, questioning them in a bad and negative way. In who's my real father (if growing up with two mothers or vice versa) ? Or: Mom, are you my mom or is mom2 my mom ?
Did you know that according to the current best estimate, 20% of children were not actually sired by their supposed biological father?
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#63

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 21:14
Originally Posted by txa1265 View Post
Of course, any data not from a balanced study with statistically significant findings is just hearsay, since I could cite screwed up people *and* well adjusted people, and screwed up people from parents that should have been divorced that didn't and on and on and on …
That depends on the claim you're examining. If the claim is that divorce should be illegal (or extremely difficult to get) because it always produces screwed-up kids, coming up with even one non-screwed-up kid from divorced parents is enough to prove the claim wrong.

If your proposition is that kids with divorced parents are more likely to be screwed-up than kids with married parents, then you'd need to do the study you're after.

(It would be tough to control for other factors, though, since factors leading to divorce are likely to also lead to screwed-up kids, in which case the causal relationship isn't between divorce and screwed-up kids but between loveless or unhappy parents and screwed-up kids. I suppose you could do a statistical study between two states that legalized divorce at slightly different times, and see if juvenile delinquency spikes, say, 10-15 years after it was legalized but with the same timing and slope in both cases. As an aside, some people did this kind of study about legalized abortion, and found a very strong negative correlation between it and crime rate — crime rates fell drastically about 18 years after abortion was legalized. The reason is pretty obvious, too — the profile for the likely abortee is very similar to the profile for a likely criminal.)
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#64

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

September 5th, 2007, 00:26
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
What you call "marriage with more than two people." I'm trying my best to avoid using the term "marriage" here because of the religious baggage it carries; I want to make it clear that I'm only interested in the legal ramifications (in this context).
(1) Would you be ready to apply the same standard to a multiple-person civil solidarity contract? That is, not outlawed, but harder to get? If not, why not?
No, I wouldn't, because as I said earlier. I believe it would put the constant pressure of a divorce on the children.


In this context, I'm not interested in what you think people *should* or *shouldn't* do either. I'm interested in what you think people should be *allowed* to do.
That wasn't your question. If you need I'll quote your question.


You know, I know people who have gone through divorces. I've gone through a very painful break-up myself, once. I find that description of divorce very offensive — you clearly have no *clue* how hard it can be.
I was referring to a divorce where both adults accept the divorce. Not about a 'messy' divorce.


Again: do you genuinely feel that, in general, a child is better off growing up in a home where the parents don't love each other but stay together anyway?

'Cuz I know people who have done just that, and many of them are badly broken because of it.
Please, I already answered that question.

(2) Do you believe that life for children is necessarily worse following a divorce than inside an unhappy, loveless couple? If so, why?
No, I don't, ….
About 50% of marriages today end in divorce. How does that make a "normal" marriage one that ends in death?

What you're doing here, Pladio, is taking your personal preferences and acting like they were the universal social norm. That would be as wrong as my taking my life experience and insisting that fifteen-year-olds experience alcohol poisoning at least once, and you have to have a minimum of 20 sexual partners before being allowed to marry. How would you like that?
No, not really. Even with 50% divorces, it means there are 50% who aren't divorcing. This means the constant pressure of a polygamous family hurts kids all the time instead of just 50% of the time.

I also don't believe 50% of the people are divorcing. Otherwise I'd see a lot more of divorces with the people I know too. I don't think it reaches 10% where I live so 50% is hard to believe. 25%-30% perhaps, but 50% ? I only heard about 50% in some studies about Paris, but that's all.

And of course I take after my surroundings, that's how life shapes a person…

No, Pladio, you're clearly the one who didn't understand it. But never mind.
If I didn't understand, I'd appreciate it if you would explain it to me.

You can't do that. This is the Internet. You're supposed to stick by your original position no matter what (or bring up Hitler, your choice).
I hope this is a joke.

Which, IMO, is wrong. The courts should not favor either parent by default; they should do their best to find out which one is likely to do the job better, and award custody to them — gay or straight.
Quoting myself here, you're repeating yourself.
Even though I agree with you, that's not how it's happening.
Did you know that according to the current best estimate, 20% of children were not actually sired by their supposed biological father?
That's why it's an estimate and not a study. It also doesn't mean anything in what we are discussing.
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#65

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,038
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

September 5th, 2007, 01:43
Originally Posted by Pladio View Post
I hope this is a joke.
It is a standard internet 'joke' that is all too often true … after a few hundred posts someone demonstrates to everyone else's satisfaction that 1+1=2, yet there is one person who will argue it is not to their dying breath, soon after calling the other person a fascist authoritarian or just jumping straight to 'Hitler'. Generally it is more in political threads (e.g. Bush = Hitler stuff)

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#66

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,329

Default 

September 5th, 2007, 02:35
I hope so otherwise I'm not ready to continue discussing this anymore.
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#67

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,038
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

September 5th, 2007, 05:44
Perhaps it would be easier if we defined our terms better. Marriage is a specific term that to ME has both legal and spiritual (religious) meaning. BOTH are important!! Living together in some sort of social contract, is different and I have no problem with de facto relationships, etc, so long as they are not called a Marriage. I even support legal rights for people in those relationships. Some churches refuse to marry such people, I don't provided it's a man and a woman (which is also the law here). I oppose the concept of same sex Marriages, (again the term), but while I do not personally approve of same sex relationships, I don't despise those people in one, or cut them off, or refuse to deal with them. They are people after all and deserve the same respect and treatment from me that I give everyone.

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#68

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,347
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

September 5th, 2007, 08:57
Originally Posted by Pladio View Post
I hope this is a joke.
Yes, it was a joke.

Actually, I think this would be a good point to finish the discussion. It's been a good one. Thing is, I'm not even particularly interested in multiple-person civil solidarity pacts (aka polygamy), because in a society where the sexes are roughly equal, this is an issue that affects a tiny minority of the population. In other words, it's not really terribly significant in practice, even if it makes for a good exercise in examining principles.

On the other hand, there are lots of homosexuals around. This means that "gay marriage" (or whatever you want to call it) is a very real practical issue for a very large number of real people. If I managed to go some way towards persuading you of this point, I'm happy.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#69

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

September 5th, 2007, 09:00
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Perhaps it would be easier if we defined our terms better. Marriage is a specific term that to ME has both legal and spiritual (religious) meaning. BOTH are important!! Living together in some sort of social contract, is different and I have no problem with de facto relationships, etc, so long as they are not called a Marriage. I even support legal rights for people in those relationships. Some churches refuse to marry such people, I don't provided it's a man and a woman (which is also the law here). I oppose the concept of same sex Marriages, (again the term), but while I do not personally approve of same sex relationships, I don't despise those people in one, or cut them off, or refuse to deal with them. They are people after all and deserve the same respect and treatment from me that I give everyone.
I'm very glad to hear that, Corwin. I think this is a good demonstration of how social conservatives and social liberals are capable of finding common ground, if they're willing to try.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#70

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

September 5th, 2007, 09:16
Always working to improve both safety and freedom at the same time is the goal of the western civilization and the reason we are so much ahead. Remember that by american standards, religion is meant to be personal, not pushed upon you by law. You do not want your life to be controlled by someone elses interpretion of the bible so neither should you try to push your interpretion into common law. Also remember that a real conservative by american standards is a liberal, not an authoritarian. America is, after all, a free country, not a christian nation.

Even the Southern Baptist Convention writes: "The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind." in their principles.

There are interpretions of the bible which states that homosexuality is ok, and there are other religions that have nothing to say regarding who can marry and who cannot. Such religious standpoints must be accepted under any country that supports religious freedom.
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#71

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,027
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

September 5th, 2007, 09:47
Rather than quoting all the people that posted while I was at work and then replying I'll just quickly say what I think.
I think children can be raised happy and balanced as easily in a same sex or opposite sex relationship, and sometimes it is better to divorce than to stay in the relationship for kids. I would be a very different, a lot happier and a lot less messed up if my mum had left my dad with us instead of thinking it was the right thing to do to stay with him, which she only did for us kids, and I know that so I don't want it to sound like I disrespect her for it. My mum is one of the most amazing women I have ever seen or heard of. While this is just my personal experience, it is not always as clear cut until "til death do you part", although that is how it ended for my parents. Sometimes it can start as I don't love you anymore and turn into a very, very bad life (I won't go into details). Again, this is only my personal experience, but divorce is sometimes the best option.
As I said before, I don't have a problem with a relationship with multiple people involved (providing they all agree and it's not just an affair) but I personally think it would be too messy and wouldn't want multiple men in my life.
And just because a couple is same sex does not mean they do not have a biological link to their child- a lot of people use a person outside the relationship to donate sperm or carry the child to term.
Not all same sex couples want to have children, and I think if you decide to adopt or use a donor it shows more committment to having a child rather than a back seat experience in the car and a "holy crap" a little later. To go through IVF or adoption is hard, and if you are a step-parent you do love the child llike it is your own. The existing children from previous relationships become your family and you protect them and care for them as your own.
In my opinion it does not matter where the child comes from or who the parents are, if the child is cared for and raised with love, care, compassion and discipline it will turn out ok. I know pets are very different from children, but I have two cats, they are not biologically related to me, but I love them, I care for them, I worry about them and I give them love, companionship and warmth, and they give a lot back to me. I love my pets like family. My dog died on New Yers Eve 12 years ago. I still think about her regularly and get choked up. I know this does not really show anything, but it does demonstrate that just because you are not biologically linked to another entity that you will not care for it and try and give it a good life.

Prime Junta, I agree entirely with what you are saying, I just haven't been able to express my thoughts with your clarity.

Eagles may soar but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

The journey of a thousand miles sometimes ends very, very badly.

When you earnestly believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do.

When I have had a bad day, I only have to think of chicken cat and I can put my problems in perspective
.
Kayla is offline

Kayla

Kayla's Avatar
Watchdog

#72

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 229

Default 

September 5th, 2007, 15:35
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
Yes, it was a joke.

Actually, I think this would be a good point to finish the discussion. It's been a good one. Thing is, I'm not even particularly interested in multiple-person civil solidarity pacts (aka polygamy), because in a society where the sexes are roughly equal, this is an issue that affects a tiny minority of the population. In other words, it's not really terribly significant in practice, even if it makes for a good exercise in examining principles.

On the other hand, there are lots of homosexuals around. This means that "gay marriage" (or whatever you want to call it) is a very real practical issue for a very large number of real people. If I managed to go some way towards persuading you of this point, I'm happy.
I think you're right.

Just one note: It's a bit coincidental (which makes me think in a world like in the Truman Show, but that's not the point, so…) , but I just read on the news yesterday evening that there were about 50000 marriages in Belgium in 2003 and about 25000-30000 divorces. Which does mean you were about right with your 50%, it must mean that my friends and people I know think marriage is more important than just a contract which you break so easily.
There is one problem with that statistic… It could also just mean less and less people are marrying ever since they introduced contracts to live together and things like that.
It also means relationships are seen today as something temporary and less important than they used to be.

I also agree with Corwin that for me marriage can't only be seen as a civil contract, it is something more… If you want to call it spiritual, religious or destiny, I believe it is something more. The floccinaucinihilipilification of marriage by modern society doesn't mean I should follow the trend.

Click here… An answer to some people's question in advance
Last edited by Pladio; September 5th, 2007 at 15:45.
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#73

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,038
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

September 5th, 2007, 16:24
I was writing something as well, but after reading Kayla's post I'll just go stand beside her and say: "What she said".

Computer n. A machine which flawlessly performs the instructions it is given, no matter how flawed those instructions may be.
Myrthos is offline

Myrthos

Myrthos's Avatar
Cave Canem
Super Moderator
RPGWatch Team

#74

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,047

Default 

September 5th, 2007, 16:31
Marriage (and divorce) statistics vary by country. In Australia divorce is holding steady while marriage drops, making the percentage look higher. In New Zealand divorce is up while marriage is down, which must make people there panicky! In the US the divorce rate is down while the marriage rate is also down, but the numbers are somewhat flat.

One article a while ago pointed out that since the numbers are arbitrary - i.e. the divorce people are not the same as the marriage people - it is hard to draw real inferences or trends.

On the surface I agree, but think that long term trends of these things can still be modeled usefully.

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#75

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,329

Default 

September 5th, 2007, 18:14
Originally Posted by txa1265 View Post
On the surface I agree, but think that long term trends of these things can still be modeled usefully.
I think that may be possible, but I haven't seen any statistics or any data on long-term trends.
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#76

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,038
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

September 6th, 2007, 00:29
Mike, I think the interesting stats would be for the number of second and third marriages as opposed to first timers. How do they match up with the divorce figures?

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#77

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,347
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

September 6th, 2007, 02:05
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Mike, I think the interesting stats would be for the number of second and third marriages as opposed to first timers. How do they match up with the divorce figures?
I have no data, nor did I see any non-404 stuff in my quick check earlier, but my 'gut feel' is that it is like cheating and relapse drinking / smoking - once you have accepted that marriage is not permanent and still choose to enter again, you will be quick to pull the trigger again.

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#78

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,329

Default 

September 6th, 2007, 02:59
I think you may be correct, but that could skew the numbers for divorce. If the majority are associated with second and third marriages then the 50% figure is somewhat adrift compared to first time marriages. Perhaps someone else can find the figures!!

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#79

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,347
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

September 6th, 2007, 09:18
Here are some figures:

[ http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=363986 ]

41 percent of first marriages end in divorce.
60 percent of second marriages end in divorce.
73 percent of third marriages end in divorce.
[ http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/2000…_too_large.cfm ]
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#80

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Should there be love and marriage for all people (over legal age)?
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:19.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch