Comments on: Assumptions http://electrolicious.com/2004/10/assumptions Daily affirmations of a word mercenary Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:06:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: paisley jane http://electrolicious.com/2004/10/assumptions#comment-4866 paisley jane Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:48:11 +0000 #comment-4866 RE: #1 - we get the same think or I get the same thing rather .. 7 years married ,no baby!! the scandal of it all! totally unrelated : you need <a href="http://www.homedepot.ca/escalate/store/DetailPage?pls=hd_canada_gift&bc=hd_canada_gift&pc=167246&tab=desc%3E&clist=018980323803:018980323835:01898032394f">this lamp!</a> .. it screamed your name to me :) perhaps a different shade .. RE: #1 - we get the same think or I get the same thing rather .. 7 years married ,no baby!!
the scandal of it all!

totally unrelated : you need this lamp! .. it screamed your name to me :)

perhaps a different shade ..

]]> By: Owen http://electrolicious.com/2004/10/assumptions#comment-4865 Owen Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:25:23 +0000 #comment-4865 _I_ have harassed Andreas about getting on the baby-train pronto, thank you very much. Broch: I laugh uproariously at your intimation that marriage is a faith-based institution before it is/was a property institution. Marriage of one form or another is _very_ old, much older than any particular faith, perhaps older even than organized religion as we know it. Many faiths, one property-holding tradition. When one thing is constant and another transient, that says something about primacy. It's fundamentaly all about the benjamins (or the cattle or landholdings), dudeski. Religious trappings are mostly a justification/stamp of cultural legitimacy upon the institution. _I_ have harassed Andreas about getting on the baby-train pronto, thank you very much.

Broch: I laugh uproariously at your intimation that marriage is a faith-based institution before it is/was a property institution. Marriage of one form or another is _very_ old, much older than any particular faith, perhaps older even than organized religion as we know it. Many faiths, one property-holding tradition. When one thing is constant and another transient, that says something about primacy.

It’s fundamentaly all about the benjamins (or the cattle or landholdings), dudeski. Religious trappings are mostly a justification/stamp of cultural legitimacy upon the institution.

]]> By: Ariel http://electrolicious.com/2004/10/assumptions#comment-4864 Ariel Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:54:05 +0000 #comment-4864 We got married for a few reasons, most of which were financial. Insurance is cheaper. It'll make a big difference in our taxes. We also wanted presents, but really, it was a financial decision, as well as an excuse to have a big party. I guess we're going for the "instigate change from the inside" theory of activism. We got married for a few reasons, most of which were financial. Insurance is cheaper. It’ll make a big difference in our taxes. We also wanted presents, but really, it was a financial decision, as well as an excuse to have a big party.

I guess we’re going for the “instigate change from the inside” theory of activism.

]]> By: Broch http://electrolicious.com/2004/10/assumptions#comment-4863 Broch Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:46:25 +0000 #comment-4863 Regarding this post, and maybe I am missing something. What was the reason that the two of you decided to get married in the first place?? Marriage is a very traditional and hyper-conservative institution that has pre-defined guidelines that define you as two people functioning as a one unit, socially, as well as legally. When you announced the engangement, I was completely surprised. While current litigation may suggest otherwise, the roots of marriage were based on religious premise, with nothing civil having a mark on the relationship. Why don't we as a society create a new and different sort of union/ceremony that more accurately reflects the mores of today, and would also include same sex couples. Please don't take this as a criticism or any form of putdown, because that is not the way that it was meant. I just support a new and different type of union that couples could enter into, where the outdated stigmas of "Marriage" could be abolished. Regarding this post, and maybe I am missing something. What was the reason that the two of you decided to get married in the first place?? Marriage is a very traditional and hyper-conservative institution that has pre-defined guidelines that define you as two people functioning as a one unit, socially, as well as legally. When you announced the engangement, I was completely surprised. While current litigation may suggest otherwise, the roots of marriage were based on religious premise, with nothing civil having a mark on the relationship. Why don’t we as a society create a new and different sort of union/ceremony that more accurately reflects the mores of today, and would also include same sex couples. Please don’t take this as a criticism or any form of putdown, because that is not the way that it was meant. I just support a new and different type of union that couples could enter into, where the outdated stigmas of “Marriage” could be abolished.

]]> By: meesha http://electrolicious.com/2004/10/assumptions#comment-4862 meesha Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:39:22 +0000 #comment-4862 I have a similar problem with the "When are you getting married?" question. And though my BF of seven years and I have decided that we are going to get married, I've been putting off announcing the engagement because I just can't face the onslaught of new questions: "Have you set a date? Where's the wedding? Where's the honeymoon? When will you have a baby?" Does the badgering never stop? I have a similar problem with the “When are you getting married?” question. And though my BF of seven years and I have decided that we are going to get married, I’ve been putting off announcing the engagement because I just can’t face the onslaught of new questions: “Have you set a date? Where’s the wedding? Where’s the honeymoon? When will you have a baby?”

Does the badgering never stop?

]]>