Huge Fuss, didn't even make it a year.

Forums › Off topic › Huge Fuss, didn't even make it a year.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 9

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1090860 17-Jul-2014 16:01

networkn: I guess we can be grateful no kids are involved.

Who's 'we'? What actual business of yours is it?

sep11guy

660 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 36
Inactive user

#1090864 17-Jul-2014 16:04

Dratsab:
networkn: I guess we can be grateful no kids are involved.

Who's 'we'? What actual business of yours is it?

no one has to have any business with anyone as such, but when such high profile weddings are in limelight, its out there for people to watch and follow and hence people can take it (marriage) for granted.

children are worst affected, so its good in a way that there was no such case.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1090870 17-Jul-2014 16:15

I can see the point you're trying to make, but 'we' have no concern whether children were involved or not. That's for the parties directly affected. All 'we' (or at least some amongst us) can have is our own sense of self appointed righteousness, which in this case is coming from dross hung out as low-picking fruit by people who don't fact check, twist facts and present unbalanced stories at every opportunity.

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1090871 17-Jul-2014 16:16

Dratsab: I can see the point you're trying to make, but 'we' have no concern whether children were involved or not. That's for the parties directly affected. All 'we' (or at least some amongst us) can have is our own sense of self appointed righteousness, which in this case is coming dross hung out as low-picking fruit by people who don't fact check, twist facts and present unbalanced stories at every opportunity.

Say what now?

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1090913 17-Jul-2014 17:40

trig42: I saw someone say in the 'debate' leading up to the decision to change the law that Gay Marriages would increase the divorce rate. True that.

True what? One example of a separation (based on conjecture no less) means the divorce rate has increased? and it's because of gay marriage? What data do you have to back up your fauxpinion?

Twitter: ajobbins

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1090914 17-Jul-2014 17:43

I got divorced in 1999. I helped increase the divorce rate for hetero couples.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3317

Trusted

#1090917 17-Jul-2014 17:45

One hundred percent of divorces are caused by marriage.

Whatifthespacekeyhadneverbeeninvented?

NZtechfreak

4649 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 461

Trusted

#1090920 17-Jul-2014 17:54

networkn:
First same sex marriage in NZ didn't last a year!.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11294678

I know not every couple will be like this, but hard to not think it wasn't just done for the free stuff they got.

Pretty cynical view!

If they've separated (it wasn't confirmed on the piece I saw), then I would imagine it is for similar reasons to those that cause half of heterosexual marriages to fail.

No reason us straight folk should be the only ones to enjoy all the misery of marital separations.

Twitter: @nztechfreak
Blogs: HeadphoNZ.org

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1678

Lifetime subscriber

#1090946 17-Jul-2014 18:38

So apparently are not allowed to make comments about ethics of buying car radar detectors, (thread locked and posts deleted)

But it seems to be ok to revel in someone's marriage breaking up with undertones of homophobia.

Sad.

A.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1090950 17-Jul-2014 18:45

The radar discussion is not locked. The replies that were off topic were removed there because they were off topic.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

MrMistofeles

66 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 9

#1090962 17-Jul-2014 18:52

Pointless discussion - marriage is legal construct, if there is any meaning beyond that it is purely up to the individuals.

Who cares if shiny things made the couple overzealous - people have been marrying for stuff (visas, politics, dowries, etc.) for thousands of years.

Opinions about the 'sanctity' or 'commitment' of marriage are just that - opinions.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

CutCutCut

1039 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 53

#1090963 17-Jul-2014 18:53

Dratsab: I can see the point you're trying to make, but 'we' have no concern whether children were involved or not. That's for the parties directly affected. All 'we' (or at least some amongst us) can have is our own sense of self appointed righteousness, which in this case is coming from dross hung out as low-picking fruit by people who don't fact check, twist facts and present unbalanced stories at every opportunity.

I think the point being made, which you may have misinterpreted, was that any possible emotional harm from this possible divorce is limited to the married couple.

alasta

6889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3363

Trusted

Subscriber

#1091102 17-Jul-2014 23:00

andrewNZ: I don't know (or care about) specifics, but they married as soon as they were ALLOWED to. They may have been together and wanting to marry for a long time prior.

Same sex marriage was not illegal under the status quo. The law change merely overturned a legal precedent whereby DIA refused to issue a marriage 'license' to same sex couples. A license which, incidentally, can be substituted for other legal instruments.

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1091112 17-Jul-2014 23:20

MrMistofeles: Pointless discussion - marriage is legal construct, if there is any meaning beyond that it is purely up to the individuals.

Who cares if shiny things made the couple overzealous - people have been marrying for stuff (visas, politics, dowries, etc.) for thousands of years.

Opinions about the 'sanctity' or 'commitment' of marriage are just that - opinions.

Did I give any indications that my comments were anything other than my opinion? 90% of what you would find on any forum, geekzone being no exception, are opinions.

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1091115 17-Jul-2014 23:23

NZtechfreak:
networkn:
First same sex marriage in NZ didn't last a year!.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11294678

I know not every couple will be like this, but hard to not think it wasn't just done for the free stuff they got.

Pretty cynical view!

If they've separated (it wasn't confirmed on the piece I saw), then I would imagine it is for similar reasons to those that cause half of heterosexual marriages to fail.

No reason us straight folk should be the only ones to enjoy all the misery of marital separations.

My opinion is that they got married "because they could" (A very very poor reason). They got a bunch of stuff for being "first". Clearly the commitment wasn't really present to undertake something that deserved better.

Most marriages last better than a year, most people would try and save a marriage for longer than that.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 9