Are You Bored In Your Marriage....?

[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?

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

She's somewhat conservative, at least in the last few threads I have seen her participate in. I tend to try to give conservatives a lot of slack when I can.

 

[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?

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

She's somewhat conservative, at least in the last few threads I have seen her participate in. I tend to try to give conservatives a lot of slack when I can.

I am neither, a conservative nor a liberal. I am a centrist, and I try to approach things realistically, not idealistically.

 

[Alex.]

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.

She's somewhat conservative, at least in the last few threads I have seen her participate in. I tend to try to give conservatives a lot of slack when I can.

She is too wack for your slack , run while you still can. The issue of divorcing for trivial matters has been prominent in today's throw away society. It has very little to do with a marriage going stale.

 

[PredFan]

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.

It is a simple question, but it's irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

 

[PredFan]

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.

No, not that kind of change, and not all of a sudden. You are wrong.

 

[PredFan]

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."

Umm, are you saying I'm lying?

 

[ChrisL]

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.

It is a simple question, but it's irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

No it is not irrelevant. The fact that you refuse to answer the simple questions says a ton. A trivial reason for you, may not be so trivial for another. That is the bottom line. Thankfully, people are not obligated to stay in a marriage that makes them unhappy people, and why should they? For someone else's sense of what is "moral" and what is "righteous?" Bullshit.

 

[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?

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

She's somewhat conservative, at least in the last few threads I have seen her participate in. I tend to try to give conservatives a lot of slack when I can.

She is too wack for your slack , run while you still can. The issue of divorcing for trivial matters has been prominent in today's throw away society.

Lol, I also happen to be killing time waiting for a friend. We are going to the gun range to get some practice in. I've got nothing else to do until he rings the doorbell.

 

[ChrisL]

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."

Umm, are you saying I'm lying?

No, I'm saying that you are avoiding answering the question in an honest way. That much is quite obvious. Someone else might think the example I gave, of your wife turning more liberal, would be a "trivial" reason and that you should remain married.

 

[Alex.]

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.

It is a simple question, but it's irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

No it is not irrelevant. The fact that you refuse to answer the simple questions says a ton. A trivial reason for you, may not be so trivial for another. That is the bottom line. Thankfully, people are not obligated to stay in a marriage that makes them unhappy people, and why should they? For someone else's sense of what is "moral" and what is "righteous?" Bullshit.

Society's sense and what is considered the norm not just one person. That is reality and a person will be judged by that standard.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

She's somewhat conservative, at least in the last few threads I have seen her participate in. I tend to try to give conservatives a lot of slack when I can.

She is too wack for your slack , run while you still can. The issue of divorcing for trivial matters has been prominent in today's throw away society. It has very little to do with a marriage going stale.

Get a grip, sicko. I am not the topic of this thread. Stalker.

 

[Alex.]

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.

She's somewhat conservative, at least in the last few threads I have seen her participate in. I tend to try to give conservatives a lot of slack when I can.

She is too wack for your slack , run while you still can. The issue of divorcing for trivial matters has been prominent in today's throw away society.

Lol, I also happen to be killing time waiting for a friend. We are going to the gun range to get some practice in. I've got nothing else to do until he rings the doorbell.

Answering a ding dong while waiting for the door to go ding dong. That is the sign of a man who would be a patient husband.

 

[ChrisL]

Every individual has the right to pursue their own happiness here in this country, regardless of whether you wingnuts approve.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

She's somewhat conservative, at least in the last few threads I have seen her participate in. I tend to try to give conservatives a lot of slack when I can.

She is too wack for your slack , run while you still can. The issue of divorcing for trivial matters has been prominent in today's throw away society.

Lol, I also happen to be killing time waiting for a friend. We are going to the gun range to get some practice in. I've got nothing else to do until he rings the doorbell.

Answering a ding dong while waiting for the door to go ding dong. That is the sign of a man who would be a patient husband.

You are the ding dong, coming into a thread and talking about a poster and going completely off topic of marriage. Now, get a grip on sick self. Address the topic or GTFO.

 

[PredFan]

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.

It is a simple question, but it's irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

No it is not irrelevant. The fact that you refuse to answer the simple questions says a ton. A trivial reason for you, may not be so trivial for another. That is the bottom line. Thankfully, people are not obligated to stay in a marriage that makes them unhappy people, and why should they? For someone else's sense of what is "moral" and what is "righteous?" Bullshit.

It isn't an irrelevant question if we look at it as a stand alone question. It's absolutely irrelevant to the discussion we were having. Do you want to have a separate discussion about my friend's divorces? Fine, but you asked it originally in response to our discussion and it wasn't relevant.

Actually, that discussion is off topic for this thread and you have already been warned by a mod to stay on topic. I would advise you do so.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

It is a simple question, but it's irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

No it is not irrelevant. The fact that you refuse to answer the simple questions says a ton. A trivial reason for you, may not be so trivial for another. That is the bottom line. Thankfully, people are not obligated to stay in a marriage that makes them unhappy people, and why should they? For someone else's sense of what is "moral" and what is "righteous?" Bullshit.

It isn't an irrelevant question if we look at it as a stand alone question. It's absolutely irrelevant to the discussion we were having. Do you want to have a separate discussion about my friend's divorces? Fine, but you asked it originally in response to our discussion and it wasn't relevant.

Actually, that discussion is off topic for this thread and you have already been warned by a mod to stay on topic. I would advise you do so.

I am asking what are these "trivial" reasons. That is all. It is completely on topic with marriage and divorce.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

It is a simple question, but it's irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

No it is not irrelevant. The fact that you refuse to answer the simple questions says a ton. A trivial reason for you, may not be so trivial for another. That is the bottom line. Thankfully, people are not obligated to stay in a marriage that makes them unhappy people, and why should they? For someone else's sense of what is "moral" and what is "righteous?" Bullshit.

It isn't an irrelevant question if we look at it as a stand alone question. It's absolutely irrelevant to the discussion we were having. Do you want to have a separate discussion about my friend's divorces? Fine, but you asked it originally in response to our discussion and it wasn't relevant.

Actually, that discussion is off topic for this thread and you have already been warned by a mod to stay on topic. I would advise you do so.

Good, then they can see Alex's and Ice Weasels personal attacks and completely irrelevant posts on the topic. Call a mod.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

It is a simple question, but it's irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

No it is not irrelevant. The fact that you refuse to answer the simple questions says a ton. A trivial reason for you, may not be so trivial for another. That is the bottom line. Thankfully, people are not obligated to stay in a marriage that makes them unhappy people, and why should they? For someone else's sense of what is "moral" and what is "righteous?" Bullshit.

It isn't an irrelevant question if we look at it as a stand alone question. It's absolutely irrelevant to the discussion we were having. Do you want to have a separate discussion about my friend's divorces? Fine, but you asked it originally in response to our discussion and it wasn't relevant.

Actually, that discussion is off topic for this thread and you have already been warned by a mod to stay on topic. I would advise you do so.

Why don't you just admit that you don't really know what you speak of? No, people do not have to remain married to a person who makes them feel unhappy, regardless of whether of you think their personal reasons are "trivial."

 

[Alex.]

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.

It is a simple question, but it's irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

No it is not irrelevant. The fact that you refuse to answer the simple questions says a ton. A trivial reason for you, may not be so trivial for another. That is the bottom line. Thankfully, people are not obligated to stay in a marriage that makes them unhappy people, and why should they? For someone else's sense of what is "moral" and what is "righteous?" Bullshit.

It isn't an irrelevant question if we look at it as a stand alone question. It's absolutely irrelevant to the discussion we were having. Do you want to have a separate discussion about my friend's divorces? Fine, but you asked it originally in response to our discussion and it wasn't relevant.

Actually, that discussion is off topic for this thread and you have already been warned by a mod to stay on topic. I would advise you do so.

I do think your stance is relevant. Why else would a marriage be torn apart by trivial matters if the partners are not bored. Of course there may be other factors but boredom is certainly one of them.

 

[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

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

ah okay well I can't believe it either.. it is humorous! I have noticed it before, I should have said something earlier!!!