Are You Bored In Your Marriage....?

[PredFan]

I would have known that before we got married.

Maybe, maybe not. What if she changed into a liberal? Then what?

Doubtful. I wouldn't marry someone that stupid.

You would have no way of predicting such a thing though. It is certainly a possibility, so would you divorce her for that? Is that a "trivial" reason to you?

I'm serious. One would have to be pretty stupid to suddenly become a Democrat when they are not. I'd be seriously concerned for her sanity.

That doesn't answer my question though. Would you divorce her? Some would say that is a trivial reason and something you could learn to deal with. Right?

No I wouldn't divorce her, I'd have her Baker Acted.

 

[Bonzi]

... or is it as exciting as the day you first met?
... or is it just different?

Do you think people confuse infatuation with love, get married, and when (IF!) the infatuation wears off they think they are no longer in love?

Mine is fantastic. My wife is still beautiful at 50, and we are still on our honeymoon. We will be the old couple in the park, holding hands. No doubt about it.

Wonderful - but comical based on your signature

 

[ChrisL]

Well, you said you knew, so why did they divorce?

Who?

You said this "Many friends and family members have been divorced, many also, more than once. Often times it was very trivial stuff too." So? What was the trivial stuff?

That's irrelevant. I was responding to your statement that leaving socks on the floor was too trivial to get divorced over. They were an example.

It is not irrelevant. You brought it up. You claim to know why people divorce and you claim that their reasons are "trivial." Maybe you should just admit that you have no idea, and that is not really YOUR place to judge whether or not their reasons are trivial?

You're lost. Let me help you:


Someone else said: "People get divorced for leaving socks on the floor."
You said: "No one gets divorced for something that silly."
I said: "He was exaggerating, trying to prove a point. I know a lot of people who got divorced over trivial things."
You said; "Well to them they are not so trivial."
I said: "Just like leaving socks on the floor is not too trivial."

It has nothing to do with what my friends got divorced over.

Are we clear now?

So what? You said you knew they were divorced for "trivial" reasons. I'm asking what are those trivial reasons? Your idea of a trivial reason might be different from somebody else's idea of a trivial reason.

 

[ChrisL]

Maybe, maybe not. What if she changed into a liberal? Then what?

Doubtful. I wouldn't marry someone that stupid.

You would have no way of predicting such a thing though. It is certainly a possibility, so would you divorce her for that? Is that a "trivial" reason to you?

I'm serious. One would have to be pretty stupid to suddenly become a Democrat when they are not. I'd be seriously concerned for her sanity.

That doesn't answer my question though. Would you divorce her? Some would say that is a trivial reason and something you could learn to deal with. Right?

No I wouldn't divorce her, I'd have her Baker Acted.

Well you can't do that because of she is a liberal. Sorry. So, how about you answer the question? Are you going to work through this issue with her or are you filing for divorce?

 

[Iron Head]

Yeah, divorce is a bitch. However, sometimes you just got to know when to abandon a sinking ship.

"Life sucks, so be a schmuck." Mark Winslow.

 

[PredFan]

... or is it as exciting as the day you first met?
... or is it just different?

Do you think people confuse infatuation with love, get married, and when (IF!) the infatuation wears off they think they are no longer in love?

Mine is fantastic. My wife is still beautiful at 50, and we are still on our honeymoon. We will be the old couple in the park, holding hands. No doubt about it.

Wonderful - but comical based on your signature

True, the signature is a joke that so far NO ONE but you has even acknowledged.

 

[Bonzi]

... or is it as exciting as the day you first met?
... or is it just different?

Do you think people confuse infatuation with love, get married, and when (IF!) the infatuation wears off they think they are no longer in love?

Mine is fantastic. My wife is still beautiful at 50, and we are still on our honeymoon. We will be the old couple in the park, holding hands. No doubt about it.

Wonderful - but comical based on your signature

True, the signature is a joke that so far NO ONE but you has even acknowledged.

well I believe you are happily married... just was funny

 

[PredFan]

Who?

You said this "Many friends and family members have been divorced, many also, more than once. Often times it was very trivial stuff too." So? What was the trivial stuff?

That's irrelevant. I was responding to your statement that leaving socks on the floor was too trivial to get divorced over. They were an example.

It is not irrelevant. You brought it up. You claim to know why people divorce and you claim that their reasons are "trivial." Maybe you should just admit that you have no idea, and that is not really YOUR place to judge whether or not their reasons are trivial?

You're lost. Let me help you:


Someone else said: "People get divorced for leaving socks on the floor."
You said: "No one gets divorced for something that silly."
I said: "He was exaggerating, trying to prove a point. I know a lot of people who got divorced over trivial things."
You said; "Well to them they are not so trivial."
I said: "Just like leaving socks on the floor is not too trivial."

It has nothing to do with what my friends got divorced over.

Are we clear now?

So what? You said you knew they were divorced for "trivial" reasons. I'm asking what are those trivial reasons? Your idea of a trivial reason might be different from somebody else's idea of a trivial reason.

And I'm trying to show you that that is beside the point.

 

[PredFan]

Doubtful. I wouldn't marry someone that stupid.

You would have no way of predicting such a thing though. It is certainly a possibility, so would you divorce her for that? Is that a "trivial" reason to you?

I'm serious. One would have to be pretty stupid to suddenly become a Democrat when they are not. I'd be seriously concerned for her sanity.

That doesn't answer my question though. Would you divorce her? Some would say that is a trivial reason and something you could learn to deal with. Right?

No I wouldn't divorce her, I'd have her Baker Acted.

Well you can't do that because of she is a liberal. Sorry. So, how about you answer the question? Are you going to work through this issue with her or are you filing for divorce?

I answered it. I said I wouldn't divorce her, I'd Baker Act her.

 

[ChrisL]

You said this "Many friends and family members have been divorced, many also, more than once. Often times it was very trivial stuff too." So? What was the trivial stuff?

That's irrelevant. I was responding to your statement that leaving socks on the floor was too trivial to get divorced over. They were an example.

It is not irrelevant. You brought it up. You claim to know why people divorce and you claim that their reasons are "trivial." Maybe you should just admit that you have no idea, and that is not really YOUR place to judge whether or not their reasons are trivial?

You're lost. Let me help you:


Someone else said: "People get divorced for leaving socks on the floor."
You said: "No one gets divorced for something that silly."
I said: "He was exaggerating, trying to prove a point. I know a lot of people who got divorced over trivial things."
You said; "Well to them they are not so trivial."
I said: "Just like leaving socks on the floor is not too trivial."

It has nothing to do with what my friends got divorced over.

Are we clear now?

So what? You said you knew they were divorced for "trivial" reasons. I'm asking what are those trivial reasons? Your idea of a trivial reason might be different from somebody else's idea of a trivial reason.

And I'm trying to show you that that is beside the point.

It is not besides the point. It is a claim you made. You said you have friends and family members who have divorced over "trivial" reasons, yet you cannot name these reasons. Hmm. I think perhaps you don't really know their reasons and cannot judge whether or they were "trivial." PEOPLE should not expect to remain married to a person who does not bring them joy and happiness. That is the bottom line.

 

[ChrisL]

You would have no way of predicting such a thing though. It is certainly a possibility, so would you divorce her for that? Is that a "trivial" reason to you?

I'm serious. One would have to be pretty stupid to suddenly become a Democrat when they are not. I'd be seriously concerned for her sanity.

That doesn't answer my question though. Would you divorce her? Some would say that is a trivial reason and something you could learn to deal with. Right?

No I wouldn't divorce her, I'd have her Baker Acted.

Well you can't do that because of she is a liberal. Sorry. So, how about you answer the question? Are you going to work through this issue with her or are you filing for divorce?

I answered it. I said I wouldn't divorce her, I'd Baker Act her.

You can't do that. You might disagree with and not like her views, but you cannot have a person committed for such reasons. So that takes that right off the table. So what are you going to do now?

 

[Iceweasel]

Well, you said you knew, so why did they divorce?

Who?

You said this "Many friends and family members have been divorced, many also, more than once. Often times it was very trivial stuff too." So? What was the trivial stuff?

That's irrelevant. I was responding to your statement that leaving socks on the floor was too trivial to get divorced over. They were an example.

It is not irrelevant. You brought it up. You claim to know why people divorce and you claim that their reasons are "trivial." Maybe you should just admit that you have no idea, and that is not really YOUR place to judge whether or not their reasons are trivial?

You're lost. Let me help you:


Someone else said: "People get divorced for leaving socks on the floor."
You said: "No one gets divorced for something that silly."
I said: "He was exaggerating, trying to prove a point. I know a lot of people who got divorced over trivial things."
You said; "Well to them they are not so trivial."
I said: "Just like leaving socks on the floor is not too trivial."

It has nothing to do with what my friends got divorced over.

Are we clear now?

It's why I filtered her out. It's like sticking your head in a paint mixer.

 

[PredFan]

... or is it as exciting as the day you first met?
... or is it just different?

Do you think people confuse infatuation with love, get married, and when (IF!) the infatuation wears off they think they are no longer in love?

Mine is fantastic. My wife is still beautiful at 50, and we are still on our honeymoon. We will be the old couple in the park, holding hands. No doubt about it.

Wonderful - but comical based on your signature

True, the signature is a joke that so far NO ONE but you has even acknowledged.

well I believe you are happily married... just was funny

I thought that joke was pretty funny and I'm disappointed that only one person even mentioned it.

 

[ChrisL]

Who?

You said this "Many friends and family members have been divorced, many also, more than once. Often times it was very trivial stuff too." So? What was the trivial stuff?

That's irrelevant. I was responding to your statement that leaving socks on the floor was too trivial to get divorced over. They were an example.

It is not irrelevant. You brought it up. You claim to know why people divorce and you claim that their reasons are "trivial." Maybe you should just admit that you have no idea, and that is not really YOUR place to judge whether or not their reasons are trivial?

You're lost. Let me help you:


Someone else said: "People get divorced for leaving socks on the floor."
You said: "No one gets divorced for something that silly."
I said: "He was exaggerating, trying to prove a point. I know a lot of people who got divorced over trivial things."
You said; "Well to them they are not so trivial."
I said: "Just like leaving socks on the floor is not too trivial."

It has nothing to do with what my friends got divorced over.

Are we clear now?

It's why I filtered her out. It's like sticking your head in a paint mixer.

Well, sorry that you can't win an argument. Seems like that's your problem.

 

[ChrisL]

Who?

You said this "Many friends and family members have been divorced, many also, more than once. Often times it was very trivial stuff too." So? What was the trivial stuff?

That's irrelevant. I was responding to your statement that leaving socks on the floor was too trivial to get divorced over. They were an example.

It is not irrelevant. You brought it up. You claim to know why people divorce and you claim that their reasons are "trivial." Maybe you should just admit that you have no idea, and that is not really YOUR place to judge whether or not their reasons are trivial?

You're lost. Let me help you:


Someone else said: "People get divorced for leaving socks on the floor."
You said: "No one gets divorced for something that silly."
I said: "He was exaggerating, trying to prove a point. I know a lot of people who got divorced over trivial things."
You said; "Well to them they are not so trivial."
I said: "Just like leaving socks on the floor is not too trivial."

It has nothing to do with what my friends got divorced over.

Are we clear now?

It's why I filtered her out. It's like sticking your head in a paint mixer.

I can't win an argument against ChrisL, so I'm going to put her on ignore to save my manly dignity is more like it. Lol.

 

[PredFan]

That's irrelevant. I was responding to your statement that leaving socks on the floor was too trivial to get divorced over. They were an example.

It is not irrelevant. You brought it up. You claim to know why people divorce and you claim that their reasons are "trivial." Maybe you should just admit that you have no idea, and that is not really YOUR place to judge whether or not their reasons are trivial?

You're lost. Let me help you:


Someone else said: "People get divorced for leaving socks on the floor."
You said: "No one gets divorced for something that silly."
I said: "He was exaggerating, trying to prove a point. I know a lot of people who got divorced over trivial things."
You said; "Well to them they are not so trivial."
I said: "Just like leaving socks on the floor is not too trivial."

It has nothing to do with what my friends got divorced over.

Are we clear now?

So what? You said you knew they were divorced for "trivial" reasons. I'm asking what are those trivial reasons? Your idea of a trivial reason might be different from somebody else's idea of a trivial reason.

And I'm trying to show you that that is beside the point.

It is not besides the point. It is a claim you made. You said you have friends and family members who have divorced over "trivial" reasons, yet you cannot name these reasons. Hmm. I think perhaps you don't really know their reasons and cannot judge whether or they were "trivial." PEOPLE should not expect to remain married to a person who does not bring them joy and happiness. That is the bottom line.

You can't seem to grasp the point and I can't get you to understand. Let's move on.

 

[ChrisL]

It is not irrelevant. You brought it up. You claim to know why people divorce and you claim that their reasons are "trivial." Maybe you should just admit that you have no idea, and that is not really YOUR place to judge whether or not their reasons are trivial?

You're lost. Let me help you:


Someone else said: "People get divorced for leaving socks on the floor."
You said: "No one gets divorced for something that silly."
I said: "He was exaggerating, trying to prove a point. I know a lot of people who got divorced over trivial things."
You said; "Well to them they are not so trivial."
I said: "Just like leaving socks on the floor is not too trivial."

It has nothing to do with what my friends got divorced over.

Are we clear now?

So what? You said you knew they were divorced for "trivial" reasons. I'm asking what are those trivial reasons? Your idea of a trivial reason might be different from somebody else's idea of a trivial reason.

And I'm trying to show you that that is beside the point.

It is not besides the point. It is a claim you made. You said you have friends and family members who have divorced over "trivial" reasons, yet you cannot name these reasons. Hmm. I think perhaps you don't really know their reasons and cannot judge whether or they were "trivial." PEOPLE should not expect to remain married to a person who does not bring them joy and happiness. That is the bottom line.

You can't seem to grasp the point and I can't get you to understand. Let's move on.

You made the claim that you knew of people who divorced for what you consider "trivial" reasons. What are those trivial reasons? It's a simple question.

 

[PredFan]

I'm serious. One would have to be pretty stupid to suddenly become a Democrat when they are not. I'd be seriously concerned for her sanity.

That doesn't answer my question though. Would you divorce her? Some would say that is a trivial reason and something you could learn to deal with. Right?

No I wouldn't divorce her, I'd have her Baker Acted.

Well you can't do that because of she is a liberal. Sorry. So, how about you answer the question? Are you going to work through this issue with her or are you filing for divorce?

I answered it. I said I wouldn't divorce her, I'd Baker Act her.

You can't do that. You might disagree with and not like her views, but you cannot have a person committed for such reasons. So that takes that right off the table. So what are you going to do now?

Yes I can and yes I would. I'm telling you that I wouldn't marry a woman who was a liberal. My wife is a conservative and I know her mind. For her to suddenly become a liberal would be a sign that there is something terribly wrong with her. You just don't shift your mind that radically. She's smart and informed and for her to suddenly become an ignorant left wing myrmidon would be a sign of mental imbalance.

 

[ChrisL]

That doesn't answer my question though. Would you divorce her? Some would say that is a trivial reason and something you could learn to deal with. Right?

No I wouldn't divorce her, I'd have her Baker Acted.

Well you can't do that because of she is a liberal. Sorry. So, how about you answer the question? Are you going to work through this issue with her or are you filing for divorce?

I answered it. I said I wouldn't divorce her, I'd Baker Act her.

You can't do that. You might disagree with and not like her views, but you cannot have a person committed for such reasons. So that takes that right off the table. So what are you going to do now?

Yes I can and yes I would. I'm telling you that I wouldn't marry a woman who was a liberal. My wife is a conservative and I know her mind. For her to suddenly become a liberal would be a sign that there is something terribly wrong with her. You just don't shift your mind that radically. She's smart and informed and for her to suddenly become an ignorant left wing myrmidon would be a sign of mental imbalance.

It happens quite often, especially when you marry young. People grow and change, and sometimes they grow apart.

 

[ChrisL]

That doesn't answer my question though. Would you divorce her? Some would say that is a trivial reason and something you could learn to deal with. Right?

No I wouldn't divorce her, I'd have her Baker Acted.

Well you can't do that because of she is a liberal. Sorry. So, how about you answer the question? Are you going to work through this issue with her or are you filing for divorce?

I answered it. I said I wouldn't divorce her, I'd Baker Act her.

You can't do that. You might disagree with and not like her views, but you cannot have a person committed for such reasons. So that takes that right off the table. So what are you going to do now?

Yes I can and yes I would. I'm telling you that I wouldn't marry a woman who was a liberal. My wife is a conservative and I know her mind. For her to suddenly become a liberal would be a sign that there is something terribly wrong with her. You just don't shift your mind that radically. She's smart and informed and for her to suddenly become an ignorant left wing myrmidon would be a sign of mental imbalance.

This is nothing but partisan hackmanship. How about you try answering the question honestly? People have certainly been known to "switch sides."