The Coffee House

[SquarePeg1]

NetFlixed The Hitman’s Bodyguard. A fun movie full of good action and an easy nonstop entertainment. Gary enjoyed the movie more than Mary Lou. Gary would watch it again.

Was going to watch a movie tonight but got sucked into the College Softball World Series regional tournaments. Incredible talent on display - very exciting stuff and got my softball fix despite another rain out today! That makes 3 of our last 4 games were rained out resulting in a very busy schedule next week with 4 games in 5 days plus Princess has 2 HS games and she has to be at Softball Senior night so will miss one of our rec league games. That's right... I'll be coaching the game and my own kid won't even be playing. Argh!

 

[Fujidave]

Very foggy start here this morning, I will still go and watch the Mini run as never done one before.

 

[davidharmier60]

Morning peeps. Good coffee.
The parents of the Santa Fe shooter don't know that guy. He is not the wonderful son they knew. When I was going to school I never EVER even thought of killing my fellow students. Tra la.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[limr50 3]

Just because someone was divorced once doesn't mean that person is incapable of having a lasting second marriage.

Well duh. First one lasted 8 years, the woman was crazy. Surprisingly I'm still close with her family because they think she's crazy also. Just visited her mother this past Sunday. Her sister and my wife are friends. i honestly have to wonder if her family feels guilty for not warning me I do thank my ex for guiding me to my 2nd and final,soon to celebrate 40 years of marriage. Think it might last.

I was referring to Dave's comment that suggested that this current royal marriage might not last because Markle was divorced ("but how long will it last though, as her first marriage did not last long"), a statement which blames her for her past failed marriage and also suggests that she would again be to blame in the case that this current marriage ultimately ends in divorce as well. I find these sentiments to be logically flawed and also distasteful.

 

[smoke665]

a statement which blames her for her past failed marriage and also suggests that she would again be to blame in the case that this current marriage ultimately ends in divorce as well.

That sort of depends on both of them. I obviously agree that just because your previous marriage ended in divorce, doesn't mean that a subsequent one will also. However there are some indicators (which most outsiders aren't privy to). If someone's marriage fails because "they" had a history of spouse abuse, infidelity, mental issues, substance abuse etc, then it's highly likely that those issues will show up in their next marriage. Even then it is dependent on the partner as to what they will accept. In my case the marriage has lasted, in the case of my Ex, she's gone through 4 marriages, and currently living part time with the last.

 

[limr50 3]

That sort of depends on both of them. I obviously agree that just because your previous marriage ended in divorce, doesn't mean that a subsequent one will also. However there are some indicators (which most outsiders aren't privy to). If someone's marriage fails because "they" had a history of spouse abuse, infidelity, mental issues, substance abuse etc, then it's highly likely that those issues will show up in their next marriage. Even then it is dependent on the partner as to what they will accept. In my case the marriage has lasted, in the case of my Ex, she's gone through 4 marriages, and currently living part time with the last.

Yes, yes, "it all depends" etc. This does not remove the logical fallacy of the original statement. If the only 'evidence' is that she was once divorced, then the conclusion that she will be again is false. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

 

[smoke665]

@limr perhaps you'r e being a little to critical over Dave's comment. As one who's been married to the same person over half my life, I could take offense to your earlier comment "Being married just once to the same person for their whole lives also doesn't necessarily represent jack s***.
Quite frankly, I think we all make far too big of a deal over the whole thing anyway. It has basically been a business contract for most of its existence, and even in the modern iteration of representing romantic love and committment, it's still an unnecessary formality." I realize there are those who for what ever reason may not feel strongly about marriage, or may have had bad experiences, but to summarily write off the institution for all, is as wrong as summarily spinning your interpretation of Dave's earlier comment. In this day and age of instant gratification, to many think love and commitment is immediate but frankly love and commitment changes, grows and morphs into something far greater and longer lasting then the initial passion that might have brought two people together. Marriage may start as a contract but through the fire of years trials and struggles, it is forged into a relationship. It's not for everyone, but for those who've found it, it's everything.

 

[davidharmier60]

I thought I was going to marry back when but she was like a switch got thrown overnight way before we got anywhere near an alter. Yesterday I brought home two buckets of stuff. Fittings, bolts, brass bits etc. I've been out sorting and got several useful fittings and such. Now I'm going to do three rolls of pennies and then my comics on the computer.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[terri56]

Marriage may start as a contract but through the fire of years trials and struggles, it is forged into a relationship.

Start as a contract? I dunno how they do it in 'Bama but, in this age, most marriages are not "starting off as a contract" for the vast majority of us. It's supposed to be the logical conclusion to a courtship that was built on the initial romantic love and commitment. If I'm understanding Leo correctly, she's only pointing out that a marriage contract is no guarantee of longevity. People generally choose to stay together or separate based on the relationship alone, although I appreciate your point that it does and should evolve over time into something less about the flush of new romance and more into an untroubled love and commitment. But since the contract isn't going to give you a guarantee of that, especially for people who aren't interested in having kids, it's not hard to understand why it seems a pointless step.

Dave did make a comment that seemed to imply that, as someone who broke off a prior marriage, if this one doesn't work the weight of the failure would be heavier on her. I found it an unfair observation, as well, but it's just his opinion and he's free to express it.

 

[Fujidave]

Just because someone was divorced once doesn't mean that person is incapable of having a lasting second marriage.

Well duh. First one lasted 8 years, the woman was crazy. Surprisingly I'm still close with her family because they think she's crazy also. Just visited her mother this past Sunday. Her sister and my wife are friends. i honestly have to wonder if her family feels guilty for not warning me I do thank my ex for guiding me to my 2nd and final,soon to celebrate 40 years of marriage. Think it might last.

I was referring to Dave's comment that suggested that this current royal marriage might not last because Markle was divorced ("but how long will it last though, as her first marriage did not last long"), a statement which blames her for her past failed marriage and also suggests that she would again be to blame in the case that this current marriage ultimately ends in divorce as well. I find these sentiments to be logically flawed and also distasteful.

I was actually on about both of them, as they have both been divorced.


I am sorry if I peeved anyone off, but I was brought up to love and respect all women by both my mother and father. They were both at my wedding when I was 21 I am now 56 and still with my wife who I love dearly, my father stayed married to my mum till the day he died, and I will do just the same. Again I am sorry for peeving folk off, it must be me as I am Old School.

 

[smoke665]

Start as a contract? I dunno how they do it in 'Bama

Improper use of the term, I was in a hurry and using Leo's term "It has basically been a business contract for most of its existence" not mine. While it does carry certain legal ramifications and responsibilities a more proper term in the biblical sense would be Covenant.

it's not hard to understand why it seems a pointless step.

I could quote several scriptures on the subject but this is not the place for same. I will say that I grew up in the "free love" era, watched many of my friends lose themselves in those beliefs, and watched many more come to realize there is no such thing as the Free Lunch. Notwithstanding the biblical reasons, the legal ramifications of the lack of a marriage license, can leave someone sadly without.

Leo correctly, she's only pointing out that a marriage contract is no guarantee of longevity

May or not have been the intent, but her wording led me another way "Being married just once to the same person for their whole lives also doesn't necessarily represent jack s***." and "even in the modern iteration of representing romantic love and committment, it's still an unnecessary formality." How can you have commitment to someone if you aren't willing to be legally recognized and bound to honor that commitment? The marriage covenant among other things represents your unconditional promises for the benefit of the other, you recognize it as a life commitment, that you must put someone else ahead of yourself, and that there will be confrontation, trials, and forgiveness. Otherwise, your free to leave whenever they p___ you off, sorry but I don't believe it works that way.

Like you read something more ominous in my post, so did I think Leo did to Dave's comment.

 

[limr50 3]

Seems about right.

 

[terri56]

Like you read something more ominous in my post,

Ominous? Not at all, or you wouldn't have seen me reply to you with the razzing smilies. Maybe I should have used a few more.

As for your other comments, well...again, that contract doesn't prevent a person from leaving, whether they've gotten PO'd one time or a dozen. We wouldn't need legal jargon like "irreconcilable differences" if it did. It's the relationship that keeps people together.

It seems clear you're very sensitive to this issue, so fine with me to move along.

 

[smoke665]

It seems clear you're very sensitive to this issue, so fine with me to move along.

Only because I've seen the mess created for men and women over the years. Fine with me to move on, have a good evening and productive week.

 

[smoke665]

@limr I will be removing the disagree ratings on your posts shortly, not because I agree with anything you say, but because I allowed myself to be goaded into doing something I detest. I've complained before about the disagree button, they add nothing but negativity to the forum and I realized I'd done the very thing I've complained about. In reviewing my own account I've received 16 dislikes and given 15 all of which were retaliatory and several of those as a direct result of previous disagreements we've already had. Not really proud of that and plan on doing things different in the future. Compare that to the 23 you've received and 34 given and you might want to consider doing the same. As we've found little we can agree on in the past, nor do I anticipate anything in the future and I can't block a moderator, how about we simply agree to disagree. I'll not comment on your future posts and you leave mine alone.