Damaged goods, or bad loving.
.
'Bei Hennef'
The little river twittering in the twilight,
The wan, wondering look of the pale sky,
This is almost bliss.
And everything shut up and gone to sleep,
All the troubles and anxieties and pain
Gone under the twilight.
Only the twilight now, and the soft "Sh!" of the river
That will last for ever.
And at last I know my love for you is here;
I can see it all, it is whole like the twilight,
It is large, so large, I could not see it before,
Because of the little lights and flickers and interruptions,
Troubles, anxieties and pains.
You are the call and I am the answer,
You are the wish, and I the fulfillment,
You are the night, and I the day.
What else - it is perfect enough.
It is perfectly complete,
You and I,
What more--?
Strange, how we suffer in spite of this.
-- D. H. Lawrence
I'm going to go with it's a publicity stunt which she used to make 18Million dollars. Hell, for that kind of money I'd marry a D-bag for a few months too.
Who?
The media whore.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who?The media whore.
Can you be more specific? ;-)
I have to go with TCG about it being a publicity stunt. Why else would they be re-running the wedding on T.V. the same day as the divorce is announced?
Does she have to return the wedding gifts???
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good thing there is that prohibition on same sex marriage in order to preserve the sanctity of traditional marriage.
how long did the marraige last, I thought they got married like a month ago?
It was somethign like 72 days. The average sea monkey lives longer and the Macarena was on the US #1 spot, just for a little perspective.
Good thing there is that prohibition on same sex marriage in order to preserve the sanctity of traditional marriage.
I'm happy about the divorce because it points out the gross inequality of anti-gay marriage people.
I'm not anti-gay marriage, but I don't think using a celebrity farce wedding as an example is a good bet.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not anti-gay marriage, but I don't think using a celebrity farce wedding as an example is a good bet.
The fact that this twit can meet a guy then get married and divorced in less than 6 months and I can't marry my monogomous committed partnerr of 5 years doesn't show inequality?
I'm not anti-gay marriage, but I don't think using a celebrity farce wedding as an example is a good bet.The fact that this twit can meet a guy then get married and divorced in less than 6 months and I can't marry my monogomous committed partnerr of 5 years doesn't show inequality?
Ahh I see what you're sayin'.
I was commenting more on using this as an example of what hetero marriage is.
What went wrong? The USA.
I'm not anti-gay marriage, but I don't think using a celebrity farce wedding as an example is a good bet.The fact that this twit can meet a guy then get married and divorced in less than 6 months and I can't marry my monogomous committed partnerr of 5 years doesn't show inequality?Ahh I see what you're sayin'.
I was commenting more on using this as an example of what hetero marriage is.
The primary excuse for bigotry is that the anti-equality groups tote is that marriage is sacred. This kardashian wedding is a counter point to that. Though frankly it's not the most important reason for equality. It's merely a tool to pick apart their tenuous "arguement."
Donald Trump's contracted wh--- (I'm sorry prostitute) is another mockery of all that is marriage.
Donald Trump's contracted wh--- (I'm sorry prostitute) is another mockery of all that is marriage.
I get all my celebrity "news" from Chelsea lately and she hasn't talked about this so I'm not familiar with it.
I get the jist from your comment and if my suspician is accurate I agree with you.
She was specifically asked if she would have still married Donald if he wasn't rich -- to which she replied, "Do you think Donald would be with me if I wasn't beautiful?"
That and try to get a copy of the pre-neps. It's basically a several year contract with an option for extension, states her pay per year, her expense accounts, what she gets at the end of the contract, what happens if either of them want to cut it off early, the fact he's got to get some, and so on and so forth.
I understand defending yourself from possible bad choices (such as the wrong spouse) but a marriage contract as something that is 'sacred' shouldn't have an expiration date when the wife gets old and supposedly not pretty.
She's nothing more than a trophy and is paraded around as such and given positions in his companies for no other reason than the fact she --- ahem, is married to him.
MY 2 cents for what it's worth.
I'm in the same boat as TCG in that IF, and mind you that is a BIG if, I wanted to get married to a really hot guy I'd have to go through nine kinds of hell for it; while these "celebrities" throw away something that should be treasured is a bigger affront to the sanctity of marriage than anything I can think of.
I'm trying to think of this other little blond pop tart that was married in Vegas for like less than a week possibly even less than 24hrs.
I know MOST folks on the message boards support marriage equality and to those I say Thank You. To the others I say try to see it from a non religious perspective and think of it as a right of EVERY CITIZEN of the United States.
I'm reminded of another Heinlein quote:
Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws — always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop. Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them for their own good.
and so as not to COMPLETELY derail the thread. If she's stupid enough to put a hunk like that back on the market I've got some nice big shoulders he can cry on.
The fact that this twit can meet a guy then get married and divorced in less than 6 months and I can't marry my monogamous committed partner of 5 years doesn't show inequality?
Silly Golem! All animals are equal...
...but some animals are more equal than others. :(
The primary excuse for bigotry is that the anti-equality groups tote is that marriage is sacred. This kardashian wedding is a counter point to that. Though frankly it's not the most important reason for equality. It's merely a tool to pick apart their tenuous "arguement."I'm not anti-gay marriage, but I don't think using a celebrity farce wedding as an example is a good bet.The fact that this twit can meet a guy then get married and divorced in less than 6 months and I can't marry my monogomous committed partnerr of 5 years doesn't show inequality?Ahh I see what you're sayin'.
I was commenting more on using this as an example of what hetero marriage is.
Understood.
"Sacred" is a subjective term, though. If you're not marrying for the purpose of loving and honoring your spouse (no matter their sex) then I'd submit they (Kim and Kris) never intended that marriage to be sacred.
and so as not to COMPLETELY derail the thread. If she's stupid enough to put a hunk like that back on the market I've got some nice big shoulders he can cry on.
1) Quick civics lession; Civil rights aren't something we vote on. That's why they're civil rights.
2) He's a D-bag. A hot D-Bag, but a D-bag none the less. I imagine she could only stand hiim in small bursts. (pun intended)
3) Now despite his D-Bag status I would still like to see him naked. Of course I would only bestow him the greaat honor of my presence only so long as he doesnt think or speak in said presence. I imagine the former is a non-issue. ;-)
my 2C.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Understood."Sacred" is a subjective term, though. If you're not marrying for the purpose of loving and honoring your spouse (no matter their sex) then I'd submit they (Kim and Kris) never intended that marriage to be sacred.
I agree with you. I'm not asking for anyting special. Only the right to have my own hollywood sham marriage for the purpose of feeding my ego and making 16 Million dollars.
I'm asking for equality, not special treatment.
I believe you should have it.
Either all Americans may marry, or get the gov't out of it.
|
Understood."Sacred" is a subjective term, though. If you're not marrying for the purpose of loving and honoring your spouse (no matter their sex) then I'd submit they (Kim and Kris) never intended that marriage to be sacred.
I agree with you. I'm not asking for anyting special. Only the right to have my own hollywood sham marriage for the purpose of feeding my ego and making 16 Million dollars.
I'm asking for equality, not special treatment.
But you can have a sham marraige for the purpose of making 16 million dollars, you just have to sham marry someone of the opposite sex. You have the same rights she does.
|
Kim Kardashian & Kris Humphries: What Went Wrong?
Who TF cares? I thought this was a forum for people, not 'sheeple'. Seriously, yeah i know who they are, only from the force fed, shoved down your throat advertising for god awful realsh*tty tv programmes.
Move along people...nothing to see here from media hungry, empty life, crying out for attention, vacuous sheeple
If I won the lottery and became mega rich, i'd keep it quiet, move away from where I currently live and invest a HUGE amount of it in Paizo :D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I blame ...Iran.
Kim Kardashian & Kris Humphries: What Went Wrong?
Who TF cares? I thought this was a forum for people, not 'sheeple'. Seriously, yeah i know who they are, only from the force fed, shoved down your throat advertising for god awful realsh*tty tv programmes.
Move along people...nothing to see here from media hungry, empty life, crying out for attention, vacuous sheeple
If I won the lottery and became mega rich, i'd keep it quiet, move away from where I currently live and invest a HUGE amount of it in Paizo :D
I agree. I don't care about them and I certainly don't watch their show. I get all of my entertainment news from Chelsea Lately. ;-)
I'm pretty sure the OP meant it as a joke also.
p.s. Lol @ sheeple.
But you can have a sham marraige for the purpose of making 16 million dollars, you just have to sham marry someone of the opposite sex. You have the same rights she does.
Understood."Sacred" is a subjective term, though. If you're not marrying for the purpose of loving and honoring your spouse (no matter their sex) then I'd submit they (Kim and Kris) never intended that marriage to be sacred.
I agree with you. I'm not asking for anyting special. Only the right to have my own hollywood sham marriage for the purpose of feeding my ego and making 16 Million dollars.
I'm asking for equality, not special treatment.
Yay, illogical anti-gay marriage argument time.
This argument didn't work in support of prohibting inter-racial marriage decades ago and it doesn't work now.
Maybe try slippery slope next time? If you let the gays marry its just a short step til pedophiles can marry multiple under age vacuum cleaners.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe you should have it.
Either all Americans may marry, or get the gov't out of it.
Some countries, I forget which specifically, have Civli unions for all regardless of gender combination, as the legal aspect and Marriage is a religious thing. I'd be fine with that.
|
|
But you can have a sham marraige for the purpose of making 16 million dollars, you just have to sham marry someone of the opposite sex. You have the same rights she does.
Understood."Sacred" is a subjective term, though. If you're not marrying for the purpose of loving and honoring your spouse (no matter their sex) then I'd submit they (Kim and Kris) never intended that marriage to be sacred.
I agree with you. I'm not asking for anyting special. Only the right to have my own hollywood sham marriage for the purpose of feeding my ego and making 16 Million dollars.
I'm asking for equality, not special treatment.
Yay, illogical anti-gay marriage argument time.
This argument didn't work in support of prohibting inter-racial marriage decades ago and it doesn't work now.
Maybe try slippery slope next time? If you let the gays marry its just a short step til pedophiles can marry multiple under age vacuum cleaners.
If I were talking about normal marraiges I might be swayed by your claim of logical fallacy but I'm trying to protect the sanctity of sham marriages to make 16 million dollars and I don't want the gays destroying our society by subverting that sacred institution.
Yay, illogical anti-gay marriage argument time.This argument didn't work in support of prohibting inter-racial marriage decades ago and it doesn't work now.
Maybe try slippery slope next time? If you let the gays marry its just a short step til pedophiles can marry multiple under age vacuum cleaners.
[sarcasm}Because "seperate but equal" worked so well the first time.[/sarcasm}
Fun fact: In Mississippi you can get married at 14 with parents permission.
But that's for humans. I imagine it's younger if you're marryng a vacuum cleaner.
Some countries, I forget which specifically, have Civli unions for all regardless of gender combination, as the legal aspect and Marriage is a religious thing. I'd be fine with that.I believe you should have it.
Either all Americans may marry, or get the gov't out of it.
I'm ok with the whole shebang if you can find a church to get married in.
It seems the most concern is the legal partner benefits that come with marriage. HEPA, soc sec, etc. If a hetero American couple gets that, so should an American gay couple, if they be married or have a civil union. I don't understand why this is even debatable, and I'm a Christian Republican.
|
Some countries, I forget which specifically, have Civil unions for all regardless of gender combination, as the legal aspect and Marriage is a religious thing. I'd be fine with that.I believe you should have it.
Either all Americans may marry, or get the gov't out of it.
As would I.
Also to the rest of this "debate" If you fart in an empty room, should you still have to say excuse me?
|
Grand Magus. Best. Troll.
Really pretty much everyone on this thread cracks me up because you keep saying things that sound like references. Eh what the hell link.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm ok with the whole shebang if you can find a church to get married in.
It seems the most concern is the legal partner benefits that come with marriage. HEPA, soc sec, etc. If a hetero American couple gets that, so should an American gay couple, if they be married or have a civil union. I don't understand why this is even debatable, and I'm a Christian Republican.
I'm a Republican too, and I don't get it either. Wasn't the whole idea of a conservative (not in a religious sense) party supposed to be about keeping our laws the heck out of people's lives? How can one reconcile that with specifically making laws that tell homosexual couples what they can do? I'll never understand...
Signed,
Another Republican for homosexual marriage.
I'm a Republican too, and I don't get it either. Wasn't the whole idea of a conservative (not in a religious sense) party supposed to be about keeping our laws the heck out of people's lives? How can one reconcile that with specifically making laws that tell homosexual couples what they can do? I'll never understand...
Signed,
Another Republican for homosexual marriage.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Now please go take your party back from the crazies...
|
Some countries, I forget which specifically, have Civli unions for all regardless of gender combination, as the legal aspect and Marriage is a religious thing. I'd be fine with that.I believe you should have it.
Either all Americans may marry, or get the gov't out of it.
I think this is the best way to go legally. It balances the first amendment right of a religion to believe what it wants (the so-called free exercise clause0 with the fourteenth amendment right of equal protection under the law. Not only that but it makes both sides unhappy which is the true definition of a successful compromise. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Now please go take your party back from the crazies...I'm a Republican too, and I don't get it either. Wasn't the whole idea of a conservative (not in a religious sense) party supposed to be about keeping our laws the heck out of people's lives? How can one reconcile that with specifically making laws that tell homosexual couples what they can do? I'll never understand...
Signed,
Another Republican for homosexual marriage.
While my politics lean toward the left, I will point out that there is plenty of crazy on both sides -- the Republicans hardly have a monopoly on it.
[/threadjack]
While my politics lean toward the left, I will point out that there is plenty of crazy on both sides -- the Republicans hardly have a monopoly on it.
[/threadjack]
Yes, I am aware. I don't believe, however, that the Democrats are currently driven by the fringe to nearly the extent that the Republicans are. YMMV.
I dunno that I like the 'civil union' verbiage. It almost seems like we'd jsut be humoring gays. "They aren't really married, they just have a civil union." Just more divisive poison. Marriage or bust, I say.
I dunno that I like the 'civil union' verbiage. It almost seems like we'd jsut be humoring gays. "They aren't really married, they just have a civil union." Just more divisive poison. Marriage or bust, I say.
I agree -- of course, I believe the only acceptable outcome is the former.
|
|
I dunno that I like the 'civil union' verbiage. It almost seems like we'd jsut be humoring gays. "They aren't really married, they just have a civil union." Just more divisive poison. Marriage or bust, I say.
Under the system that TCG is talking about and that many Constitutional scholars advocate, marriage would not exist as a legal construct. There would be more like a legal partnership that extends the same rights to couples and families regardless of whether that are homosexual or heterosexual, married or living together. Remember that there are many heterosexual couples that are just as discriminated against as gay couples simply because they make a choice not to go through the formality of getting married. It used to not be much of an issue because most states recognized common law marriage, but even that is only recognized in D.C. and about ten states anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that.
To avoid confusion, I nominate "Marriage" to be the name of such a civil union. Done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Under the system that TCG is talking about and that many Constitutional scholars advocate, marriage would not exist as a legal construct. There would be more like a legal partnership that extends the same rights to couples and families regardless of whether that are homosexual or heterosexual, married or living together. Remember that there are many heterosexual couples that are just as discriminated against as gay couples simply because they make a choice not to go through the formality of getting married. It used to not be much of an issue because most states recognized common law marriage, but even that is only recognized in D.C. and about ten states anymore.
That makes sense. Frankly I think most of the problem stems from mixing the religious with the legal in the first place...
I dunno that I like the 'civil union' verbiage. It almost seems like we'd jsut be humoring gays. "They aren't really married, they just have a civil union." Just more divisive poison. Marriage or bust, I say.
The verbage is less important to me than the rights. If everyone (gay and straight) use the same verbage and have the same rights than I'm fine with that. But historically "separate, but equal" isn't.