Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Arranged/Love Marriage


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#31 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 27 February 2013 - 05:18 PM

So you are against the possibility of losing 50% of you assets to someone who you may separate from then.

Common-law status is common throughout first-world countries.... so although BC has more stringent guidelines to these laws, it is still only avoidable by not living with anyone...ever....

It's common, but not universal. Also, I don't know why you're arguing for this and thinking it will make me think marriage is a good idea.
  • 0
"Suck it Phaneuf" -Scott Hartnell
The poster formerly known as "CAPSLOCK"
Posted Image

#32 hudson bay rules

hudson bay rules

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,386 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 10

Posted 27 February 2013 - 05:21 PM

I once told a friend (brown) that I thought her friend (also brown) was cute. I was just being polite and complimentary and didn't have any real intentions.

The response.... Don't go there. It seems they are keeping them all for themselves. Tradition dies hard.


Her dad said he'd be happy to take me to India to set me up with a wife if I wanted tho.

Edited by hudson bay rules, 27 February 2013 - 05:27 PM.

  • 0
I love rock and roll, just put another dime in the juice box baby.

#33 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,277 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 27 February 2013 - 05:34 PM

It's common, but not universal. Also, I don't know why you're arguing for this and thinking it will make me think marriage is a good idea.


You think I care about what you think is a good idea?

Now that is funny.

Just pointing the fallacy of your point of view.
  • 0
Posted Image

#34 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,763 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 27 February 2013 - 08:12 PM

Dangerously close to prostitution.


Either your response is completely ignorant of prositution and/or arranged marriages or your comments are dangerously close to stupidity.
  • 0

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

rsz_theylive.jpg 11477626583_2368927097.jpg  7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#35 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 27 February 2013 - 08:21 PM

Either your response is completely ignorant of prositution and/or arranged marriages or your comments are dangerously close to stupidity.

I go with the latter choice.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#36 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 27 February 2013 - 09:39 PM

You think I care about what you think is a good idea?

Now that is funny.

Just pointing the fallacy of your point of view.


There is no fallacy in my point of view. The only fallacy is how you associate whats considered law with what is good.Whats hilarious is how condescending you are when you're trying to point out how I'm supposedly wrong.

"I think marriage is dumb"

"Yeah well if you live with someone for awhile in BC you're considered married."

"So?"

"So therefore marriage is good and you're wrong."
  • 0
"Suck it Phaneuf" -Scott Hartnell
The poster formerly known as "CAPSLOCK"
Posted Image

#37 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,793 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 27 February 2013 - 10:01 PM

I once told a friend (brown) that I thought her friend (also brown) was cute. I was just being polite and complimentary and didn't have any real intentions.

The response.... Don't go there. It seems they are keeping them all for themselves. Tradition dies hard.


Her dad said he'd be happy to take me to India to set me up with a wife if I wanted tho.


Do it - Indian wives rule!

::D
  • 0
Posted Image

#38 Phil_314

Phil_314

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,056 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 09

Posted 27 February 2013 - 10:23 PM

OP, is this for a family studies course? :P

I'd heard of the notion that the people with whom you live often have a better idea of who is and isn't a match for you, so going by the presumption that the son/ daughter still lives at home their parents should have the best understanding of who's a fit, and with whom you really share the most commonalities. With that in mind, (unless your parents are trolls) I'd say if they suggest it (NOT force it) they probably know the reasoning for their suggestion and so, given that you are interested in them also, I'd say give it a go.
  • 0

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.


Jesus LOVES YOU!
2012, meet Matthew 24:36-47!

14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.


#39 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 06

Posted 27 February 2013 - 11:32 PM

So you are against the possibility of losing 50% of you assets to someone who you may separate from then.

Common-law status is common throughout first-world countries.... so although BC has more stringent guidelines to these laws, it is still only avoidable by not living with anyone...ever....


First, in just a couple of weeks (March 18), the new BC Family Law Act will come into effect. This Act basically says that, for property division, you take out what you put in. So the only assets split 50% will be those assets accumulated during the relationship.

Second, you can always make a separation agreement (or a "pre-nup", i.e. marriage contract) to vary the 50% presumption to whatever you want.
  • 0

#40 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,277 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:06 AM

There is no fallacy in my point of view. The only fallacy is how you associate whats considered law with what is good.Whats hilarious is how condescending you are when you're trying to point out how I'm supposedly wrong.

"I think marriage is dumb"

"Yeah well if you live with someone for awhile in BC you're considered married."

"So?"

"So therefore marriage is good and you're wrong."


I never said marriage was good... Just pointing out that marriage is inevitable if you plan on having any sort of real long term relationship

I am making these comments because you sound like a stereotypical 16-22 yr old Male.... who wants to party...and 'get chicks'.... and 'marriage is stupid'... then you are going to wake up in your mid-twenties, and want to meet someone to settle down with.

Edited by Squeak, 28 February 2013 - 12:23 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#41 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,277 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:09 AM

First, in just a couple of weeks (March 18), the new BC Family Law Act will come into effect. This Act basically says that, for property division, you take out what you put in. So the only assets split 50% will be those assets accumulated during the relationship.

Second, you can always make a separation agreement (or a "pre-nup", i.e. marriage contract) to vary the 50% presumption to whatever you want.


Fair enough... I was unaware of those law changes.

Pre-nups are available for people who need it (i.e. entering a relationship with a large amount of assets), not for people who don't support the idea of marriage

Edited by Squeak, 28 February 2013 - 12:10 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#42 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:35 AM

I never said marriage was good... Just pointing out that marriage is inevitable if you plan on having any sort of real long term relationship

I am making these comments because you sound like a stereotypical 16-22 yr old Male.... who wants to party...and 'get chicks'.... and 'marriage is stupid'... then you are going to wake up in your mid-twenties, and want to meet someone to settle down with.


Well maybe you should focus more on reading comprehension then what you "think I sound like".

I said I see no point in signing a legal contract saying you'll love someone forever, outside of religious reasons (though thats another can of worms entirely).

You said I must've "had my heart broken".

You then started going on about how If I lived with someone in BC for an extended period of time I'm essentially married.

Which is completely irrelevant. If a city uses taxpayer money to fund a new hockey stadium, but I hypothetically don't like hockey, am I then obligated to like it because my taxes are going towards it?
  • 0
"Suck it Phaneuf" -Scott Hartnell
The poster formerly known as "CAPSLOCK"
Posted Image

#43 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 06

Posted 28 February 2013 - 10:36 AM

Fair enough... I was unaware of those law changes.

Pre-nups are available for people who need it (i.e. entering a relationship with a large amount of assets), not for people who don't support the idea of marriage


You can write a relationship contract (i.e. what some people might call a pre-nup) for any type of relationship - it's just a contract. Two people can consensually contract into just about anything they want. So, if you're living with a person and foresee it turning into a common-law marriage (after 2 years of cohabitation), then you can write an agreement to govern what happens in the event of a breakdown.
  • 0

#44 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,277 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:28 AM

Well maybe you should focus more on reading comprehension then what you "think I sound like".

I said I see no point in signing a legal contract saying you'll love someone forever, outside of religious reasons (though thats another can of worms entirely).

You said I must've "had my heart broken".

You then started going on about how If I lived with someone in BC for an extended period of time I'm essentially married.

Which is completely irrelevant. If a city uses taxpayer money to fund a new hockey stadium, but I hypothetically don't like hockey, am I then obligated to like it because my taxes are going towards it?



Sounds like a great basis for a relationship - 'I am married/living with you.... but I don't like it'

You are failing to see my point - which is - marriage is an inevitable part of a relationship, but if you are lucky enough to meet the handful of women who don't want to get married - you will eventually live together, which in turn will turn into a marriage-like arrangement (common-law)

If you don't like this inevitable part of all relationships - then how are you going to have any serious long-term relationships? Just not going to live together? I personally know 2 couples in the last 6 months (1 together for 4 years, and 1 for 8 years) who broke up because the guy or girl was dragging their feet on LIVING together; so not even marriage.

I made the points about 'sounds like' (got your heart broken and/or a stereotypical 16-22 yr old male) - because you are exhuding these traits because your argument is that you shouldn't sign a legal contract to 'love someone' forever -- which in theory what marriage is, but it really represents more than that.

Maybe your parents have seperated, and this is why you have this opinion, or you are the one of the ones I alluded to before, or something else is making you have this very close minded and rigid thought - but as I said the likelihood of having a long-term relationship is going to go into the sink unless you realize that marriage is almost inevitable with any functioning serious long term relationship; or you are probably going to spend your last days alone with that train of thought.

Edited by Squeak, 28 February 2013 - 11:46 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#45 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:58 PM

Sounds like a great basis for a relationship - 'I am married/living with you.... but I don't like it'

You are failing to see my point - which is - marriage is an inevitable part of a relationship, but if you are lucky enough to meet the handful of women who don't want to get married - you will eventually live together, which in turn will turn into a marriage-like arrangement (common-law)

If you don't like this inevitable part of all relationships - then how are you going to have any serious long-term relationships? Just not going to live together? I personally know 2 couples in the last 6 months (1 together for 4 years, and 1 for 8 years) who broke up because the guy or girl was dragging their feet on LIVING together; so not even marriage.

I made the points about 'sounds like' (got your heart broken and/or a stereotypical 16-22 yr old male) - because you are exhuding these traits because your argument is that you shouldn't sign a legal contract to 'love someone' forever -- which in theory what marriage is, but it really represents more than that.

Maybe your parents have seperated, and this is why you have this opinion, or you are the one of the ones I alluded to before, or something else is making you have this very close minded and rigid thought - but as I said the likelihood of having a long-term relationship is going to go into the sink unless you realize that marriage is almost inevitable with any functioning serious long term relationship; or you are probably going to spend your last days alone with that train of thought.


No, no, no. This all goes back to your lack of reading comprehension. I said I think marriage is dumb. Thats it. I never said any of the things you are projecting onto me. I never said I'm never going to get married or all of the wild speculation you attributed to me. You started attacking me instead of discussing the point at hand. I suspect you are just offended by my point of view for some reason, and are trying to rationalize it/belittle it so you can deal with it. Your use of strawman and ad hominem attacks is kind've annoying. Believe it or not, my parents have a perfectly healthy relationship. I don't go out and have casual sex with multiple women.

I just don't see the point of marriage in a modern society. Unless you believe your religion requires you to get married (another can of worms entirely), then I don't see why two people require a legal contract saying their love is everlasting. Marriage arose as a tool to unite families and gain political power, and as part of religious doctrines. If you're not getting married for either of those two things, I don't see why two people can't just love each other.

TL:DR: Try to work on your reading comprehension skills, and I suggest taking it easy if what people say on the internet offends you.

Edited by CAPSLOCK, 28 February 2013 - 01:05 PM.

  • 0
"Suck it Phaneuf" -Scott Hartnell
The poster formerly known as "CAPSLOCK"
Posted Image

#46 22Sedinery33

22Sedinery33

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 542 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 12

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:01 PM

Do it - Indian wives rule!

::D


I hope that was a joke lol...
  • 0
Posted Image

#47 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,277 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:13 PM

No, no, no. This all goes back to your lack of reading comprehension. I said I think marriage is dumb. Thats it. I never said any of the things you are projecting onto me. I never said I'm never going to get married or all of the wild speculation you attributed to me. You started attacking me instead of discussing the point at hand. I suspect you are just offended by my point of view for some reason, and are trying to rationalize it/belittle it so you can deal with it. You're use of strawman and ad hominem attacks is kind've annoying. Believe it or not, my parents have a perfectly healthy relationship. I don't go out and have casual sex with multiple women.

I just don't see the point of marriage in a modern society. Unless you believe your religion requires you to get married (another can of worms entirely), then I don't see why two people require a legal contract saying their love is everlasting. Marriage arose as a tool to unite families and gain political power, and as part of religious doctrines. If you're not getting married for either of those two things, I don't see why two people can't just love each other.

TL:DR: Try to work on your reading comprehension skills, and I suggest taking it easy if what people say on the internet offends you.


I might as well just re-quote part of that post as you missed the entire point of the argument... and instead focused on where I was trying to suggest why/how your opinion is close-minded.

Sounds like a great basis for a relationship - 'I am married/living with you.... but I don't like it'

You are failing to see my point - which is - marriage is an inevitable part of a relationship, but if you are lucky enough to meet the handful of women who don't want to get married - you will eventually live together, which in turn will turn into a marriage-like arrangement (common-law)


You are hiding under the 'I don't know what the future will hold' argument.... while I am simply pointing out that, marriage is inevitable if you intend on having any type of functioning long term relationship, lastly, as I stated, you are not going to get into a very healthy relationship if you are saying 'marriage is dumb' right off the bat. But if you did - it's almost safe to assume that after a few years together, marriage will inevitably be brought to the table.

I want to point out - at no point have I attacked you.... I don't know who you are, but my points were ideas/suggestions of why you have such a view on marriage... saying marriage is dumb because its a contract to love someone, or it was created for the following reasons is looking at marriage on a strictly business level, rather than the emotional level that marriage means.

I have NO idea where you got I was offended.... I assume because you feel that I am 'attacking' you... if I wanted to attack you, I would've, and you would've known.

My argument has been repeated multiple times, which you have ignored, and are trying to suggest my reading comprehension is lacking as a rebuttal. So really this discussion can't go any further, as you have dug your heels in.

Edited by Squeak, 28 February 2013 - 01:19 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#48 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:30 PM

I might as well just re-quote part of that post as you missed the entire point of the argument... and instead focused on where I was trying to suggest why/how your opinion is close-minded.



You are hiding under the 'I don't know what the future will hold' argument.... while I am simply pointing out that, marriage is inevitable if you intend on having any type of functioning long term relationship, lastly, as I stated, you are not going to get into a very healthy relationship if you are saying 'marriage is dumb' right off the bat. But if you did - it's almost safe to assume that after a few years together, marriage will inevitably be brought to the table.

I want to point out - at no point have I attacked you.... I don't know who you are, but my points were ideas/suggestions of why you have such a view on marriage... saying marriage is dumb because its a contract to love someone, or it was created for the following reasons is looking at marriage on a strictly business level, rather than the emotional level that marriage means.

I have NO idea where you got I was offended.... I assume because you feel that I am 'attacking' you... if I wanted to attack you, I would've, and you would've known.

My argument has been repeated multiple times, which you have ignored, and are trying to suggest my reading comprehension is lacking as a rebuttal. So really this discussion can't go any further, as you have dug your heels in.


Oh boy. I don't know how many times I have to restate this. You weren't arguing for what I was saying, you were saying irrelevant personal things like "I must be a womanizer" or "My parents must've gotten divorced" instead of discussing what I was actually saying. I don't think marriage really has a place in today's society. You then went off on a tirade about how if I want to have an enduring relationship with someone, I'll likely have to get married, or will at least be considered married with the whole common-law thing. Which I accepted. I never said "I am never going to get married" or anything like that. You just started saying that because this scenario is likely, I must therefore think marriage is great. Which isn't how it works.
  • 0
"Suck it Phaneuf" -Scott Hartnell
The poster formerly known as "CAPSLOCK"
Posted Image

#49 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,277 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:32 PM

Oh boy. I don't know how many times I have to restate this. You weren't arguing for what I was saying, you were saying irrelevant personal things like "I must be a womanizer" or "My parents must've gotten divorced" instead of discussing what I was actually saying. I don't think marriage really has a place in today's society. You then went off on a tirade about how if I want to have an enduring relationship with someone, I'll likely have to get married, or will at least be considered married with the whole common-law thing. Which I accepted. I never said "I am never going to get married" or anything like that. You just started saying that because this scenario is likely, I must therefore think marriage is great. Which isn't how it works.


Never said must've..............and at no point did you 'accept' my point............. maybe re-read the posts.

But as I said - there is no point to going further with this discussion.

Edited by Squeak, 28 February 2013 - 01:33 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#50 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,793 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 28 February 2013 - 06:34 PM

I hope that was a joke lol...


No way, Jose!

I married an Indian girl - Canadian born, though. She's the cat's meow!
  • 0
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.