[Maelakin]

Originally posted by Yorick: As to your comments that "my experience doesn't matter" I'm afraid it does. We kept our possessions seperate and the law definitely looked at it that way. We used a legal mediator and pretty much each kept all we brought in. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. Marriage is not simply a "merger of finances". That would be a business partnership, and an aspect of marriage you CAN enter into.

If you really want to go down this road we can. Did she sue you? Did you sue her? Or, did you accept the legal mediator’s decisions as they were given? Did you stand before a judge and have the judge make a ruling as to who retained what possessions? If you did not, then you made a decision together to forgo that process.

Your assumption that I have no idea what I am talking about is complete idiocy. I WAS married and kept separate finances from my spouse. When we were divorced, I was TOLD by a judge to give her money out of my separate bank account and she was allowed to take items I purchased with money I earned. In addition, I got to send her a lovely paycheck each week in return for her infidelity. So tell me again how I have no idea what I’m talking about.

Originally posted by Yorick: Have you heard of "prenuptual agreements Maelakin?

You mean those legally binding contracts used to keep specific portions of one’s finances and possessions separate during marriage? So tell me how using a business contract to keep financial ambiguity supports your assessment.

Originally posted by Yorick: As to "was it quick and painless" some sensitivity could be in order. It nearly killed me thanks Maelakin. Not because of the mere finances, but because of the social, emotional and spiritual conjoinment the union contains.

I obviously was referring to the possibility of a long and drawn out court battle that resulted from the divorce. There is no need to play the victim as a result of my comment.

Originally posted by Yorick: Again, let's hear your personal experience of marriage and divorce. I'd love to hear it.

At the age of 15 I met a girl whom I spent the next 4 years of my life with. At the age of 18 we were married before I went and served time in the Navy. During the time I was gone, she decided it was better for her to engage in sexual acts outside that of our marriage. As a result, we divorced due to irreconcilable differences and I was forced to pay as noted above.

As for the emotional mumbo jumbo everyone keeps referring too, that had absolutely nothing to do with the marriage. I would have felt the same even if we weren’t married. For all intents and purposes, marriage outside of religion has no bearing on the solidity of the vows. In religion you swear under God to live by your vows, and that actually means something to some people. For those of us who do not follow any particular religion, vows made in the courtroom are nothing more than allowing the state to view us as a single entity.

Maybe in my argument I have been using the wrong wording. People keep referring to business mergers instead of financial mergers. When two companies merge together financially, it also entails intertwining other facets of the business. Items such as Power of Attorney are included in these dealings. In all cases, each of the accepting parties gives the other power over them to make decisions on their behalf. Maybe many of you just haven’t been part of a merger and don’t understand all the ramifications one presents.

In all, I’m stating that marriage, outside of religion for those who can’t seem to separate these, has nothing to do with emotional unity. While many may marry for this reason that is something they choose to add to the marriage. If that were what marriage was, it would be required before two parties could be married.

One the subject of the pet, read what I wrote. If it is stated in the law that we do not own the pet, and ownership of the animal is outlawed, then there isn’t a problem. As it stands however, I should be able to kill my pet.

For example, I once owned a pig that was my pet for 2 years. After two years, I killed it and it was eaten. Does this constitute animal cruelty? Should I have not been allowed to kill and eat the pig? Does the type of animal now play a part in what we can and cannot kill to eat?

I can understand abuse, such are repeated beatings. But, you go too far when you mention ending its life prematurely.