| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
| Effects of Marriage Amendments |
|
Here is a development that I thought was significant and worth noting.
http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?id=15513&sd=03/25/05
Apparently the wave of constitutional amendments that passed last election has had an unforseen effect. A judge in Ohio has ruled that couples who live together can not commit domestic violence against each other. Apparently, the Ohio Constitution has a line in it the forbids enforcement of any law that would treat any non-married couple as married. That means no common law marriage. That means that if a man beats his live-in girlfriend and mother of his 3 children every week for a year, that is 52 simple assualts, no different from 52 separate bar fights. I know that the admendments were intended to prevent gay marriage, an intention that I support, but I don't think that was what they wanted.
The problem is it is written into the constitution, so honestly, they are stuck with that, unless the courts intentionally misinterpret the constitution to correct it. They can't simply pass a law to correct it. I suspect that several states will soon find themselves in the same position. I know the amendment that just passed in my state has a line that read "...LEGAL STATUS FOR UNMARRIED PERSON WHICH IS IDENTICAL OR SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO MARITAL STATUS SHALL NOT BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED..." No one has tested it in this manner but I am concerned. I knew that something like this would happen when this issue first surfaced.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
Sat Mar 26, 2005 2:55 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Not true. hitting an adolescent is never simple assualt. And why do you assume that only men do the beating? My wife has punched me at least 100 times, kicked me, scratched me, bit me, threw a knife at me, hit my with the pointy end of the iron, and hit me with a car. I pushed her down once when she was punching me, but other than that I am 100% pure battered husband. I am better at verbal abuse though.
But the fact is beating anyone 50 times comes with a lot more than 50 simple assualts. It wouldn't fly. If I beat up a room mate what charge should I get? Or should domestic charges only apply to people having intercourse? What about the elderly (that don't use viagra) that substain from intercourse? Why should special charges apply to certain relationships?
Why shouldn't there be only one battery charge for adults? Because woman are weaker and inferior to men? Or because society is inherently sexist? What does equal protection under the law mean? How come when I show people the indend and mushy skull area where I was whacked with an iron by my spouse they laugh? Would they laugh if the situation was reversed? How come when a neighbor called the cops over the noise of her beat9ing me I got taken to jail, even though I was bleeding and she admitted I never laid a hand on her?
I don't care about it though. I wish she would stop abusing me, but owning and carrying around a penis in my pants kind of shuts me off from crying about it or taking further measures to stop it. My point is laws intended to protect a certain group (besides minors) are unconstitutional. Equal protection brotha. The only acception would be affermative action plans that are only constyituntional if the are put in place to correct past discriminatory practices, and bona fide occupational qualifications (bfoq's) put in place like a female lady's room attendant.
Lets all stop being consumed by sexism and start to treat each other as equals. Regardless of race, SEX, color, religion and country of origin. (p.s. ADA and acts like that are put in place not to protect a group, but to make sure individuals meeting the rquirments are treated equally).
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sat Mar 26, 2005 5:18 am |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
Roqua, stop taking beatings.
A wise man once said, "If she acts like a man, treat her like one."
quote:
By Rogua
How come when a neighbor called the cops over the noise of her beat9ing me I got taken to jail, even though I was bleeding and she admitted I never laid a hand on her?
Well, Roqua I understand what you are saying.
1) Men and women are different. They react differently in when placed in the same situation. All people expect different things from men and women.
2) U.S. law behaves in a way to protect women from men. That isn't its sole purpose but is does behave that way. Equal protection is an ideal we strive for but one that has never existed. Why else would you go to jail when your wife jumps on you?
About your wife....
People laugh when you show them the injuries inflicted on you by your wife because they assume it only gets that far because you let it, and that you have the power to stop it if you want to. Without some knowledge that tells me that you are not normal I would have to agree with them.
You may not be able to stop her from fighting. Some women just like to fight. They pick and pick until you fight, once you whip her she's all lovey dovey and wants to make up. Next week, she wants to fight again. Most are not like that but some are. If that's her then that's her. But then that doesn't sound like what you are doing from what you are saying, you are not fighting back.
Personally, if my women threw a knife at me, then I'm gone......GMF......But I'm not married so it would be hard to actually leave when you are truly in love with some.
A wise man once said, "If she acts like a man, treat her like one."
Try this, the next time she hits you or poses like she is going to hit you, tell her that if she hits you one more time she will receive the worst beating she has ever had. When she hits you, man-handle her. You should be able to do this without seriously hurting her. Still, deliver a sound whipping just like that way she has beaten you in the past (but don't hit her with the car or iron;don't stab her either) When she realizes 1) that she can't possible win a fight against, 2) that your are going to fight back every time, she'll stop. She'll get tired of taking beatings, just like you are.
Realize you may go to jail for doing this but it is necessary if you want to save your marriage and life. (She IS throwing knives and running over you witn the car, not to mention hitting you with the pointy end of an iron.) If you don't have the stomach to do that, leave now, and put those years to productive use.
On top of that, if you don't fight back, eventually she will find another man. Just being honest. If you can't accept it from me, ask some man who has been married for 30-40 years whom you trust and can accept if from.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Tue Mar 29, 2005 1:00 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I disagree, although I do not hold women to a different standard than men, I live my life as mucho macho as I can; so I basically hold men to a different standard than regualr men.
There is nothing a women can do to get me to hit her, when I die I won't be able to claim much but there will be certain things i can say. 1) No male has ever stuck anything up my anus (I get my prostate checked by a women doctor) 2) I never hit a women or a sissy man 3) I've never drank flavored coffee 4) I've never mixed liquer with any other substance (such as a jack and coke, etc) and I've never drank a flavored beer (like cranberry sam adams, etc). 5) I never cried since pre-teen years
There is more, but I'm sure you get the jist.
And I alos know what to say to get my wife to hit me, and even though I tell people in a humourous way, I tell them so the fact that I am abused is established. As it is now, domestic law greatly favors me, the abusee. If and when I go to court they have to apply the law inacted for females equally to me. So there is established presidence for me never loosing my daughter, jury or no. Since the law is greatly unfair and favorable to women in custody cases, I stand to lose too much by hitting her, and I gain a lot by her hitting me.
My daughter is my life, I will except nothing less than full custody if it comes down to it. There is no pain great enough to ever jeopardize losing her.
And I also use it to my advantage, for instance when Dungeon Lords come's out I will have to pick a fight with her and esculate it until she hits me bad enough and enough times to warrant storming out and going to waste money on a game without her nagging me about wasting money.
Life is like chess, you utilize the pieces to get what you want. Sometimes you have to sacrifice to get the win. Pain is temporary, winning the game is eternal.
But you never answered if battery charges should be different for different groups of adults and why?
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:50 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
Ya' got me. You had me thinking that you were being abused by your wife. I got the impression that you were a victim being beaten and traumatized by your wife. You are anything but a victim. Even at the moment when her fist makes contact with your jaw you are in control, because you are provoking the fights to get a desired result. I admit it ya' got me. Now I must say this....
quote:
By Roqua
So there is established presidence for me never loosing my daughter, jury or no. Since the law is greatly unfair and favorable to women in custody cases, I stand to lose too much by hitting her, and I gain a lot by her hitting me.
That is one of the best ideas I have ever heard!!! That idea is only a little lower than, "Men and Women are different", and "Don't go against the money" and rare few other that form the basis of my understanding. Each of us is now a little smarter for having read your posts. That is money, providing that she doesn't kill you with a car or the iron.
To answer your question, there are two points of view I could take depending on exactly what you intend to ask.
1) If you mean within the context of the laws currently on the books, then I think there should be no difference. The law claims it treats everyone equally, so it should do just that. There should be no difference in laws or enforcement of laws.
2) You could mean within the larger context of natural law, and what it means to be a man or woman. This would be sort of a "If I ruled the world and could do anything I wanted" context. In this context I contend that men and women are different. I contend that people instinctively know this whether they are consciously aware of it or not. I contend that in certain circumstances it is honestly unfair to a man to ask or expect him to behave as a woman would, and vice versa. In that context I think all laws should be viewed in the context of "what would a reasonable man do in this situation" and also from the context of "what would a reasonable woman do in this situation." I believe different laws should be enforced to account for the difference in behavior between genders.
Rogua, I would ask you to consider whether you think this is true yourself. You obviously think that hitting a man is different from hitting a woman. From your words you don't feel threatened by your wife attacking you. How would she feel if you were to attack her?
I think the unfairness in the law comes from the law trying to treat men and women as the same while the people who enforce the law instinctively protect women while they ignore the actions of a reasonable man. For example, a blue collar worker and a housewife divorce. The court finds that the children should reside with the mother because she has been the primary care giver. The court also gives no weight to the reality that a reasonable man goes to work every day to provide for his family. The law does however say that both parents should contribute money to the child's upbringing. Thus is born the presumption of mothers getting custody and fathers paying for it. They may call it "joint custody" or something else, but the reality that the parent with whom the child lives has most of the power is completely ignored.
I hope this answered your question on my views on the subject. I will clarify further if necessary.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:04 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I wouldn't call me smart; I would say that I'm a retard for participating in and antagonizing the events.
But, I think I made it sound a little too one sided. My wife would tell you a different story than the one I am. I kind of skipped all the events leading up to it, when in fact if I told the whole story chances are most people would be glad she hit me. Besides the iron one, that was rediculous. With the knife one I figured she was going to throw it at me if I kept going and kept going, she didn't even come close to hitting me though (thanks to my cat like reflexes and speed of a mongoose. Just kidding, I have the reflexes of a turtle). The car incident wasn't really that bad, I stormed out and she chased me and kept trying to get me to stop, which I wouldn't. So she tried to block me with the car but actually ran into me with it. She was only going like 5 miles an hour though. But that doesn't make a good or effective story, so I just say she hit me with a car.
There was a time that I thought a divorce was emminent so I tried to stack the cards in my favor, but things are definitely getting better (thanks to the wonders of alchohol, thank you Milwakees Best Ice).
I definitely exagerated on the Dungeon Lords scenario. I am going to start a fight, but I have to make it her fault, and I have to connect it to her wastinbg money. But chances are it won't even come close to blows.
But, knowing the rules (explicit or implicit) and stacking the cards in your favor is always the best course of action in most situations. But, thankfully, my wife and I are hard chargers and always manage to stick it out. I wish my marriage was more open and I didn't try and stack the cards in my favor. I wish my marriage was a marriage of complete trust, but whose is? All I know is that I need to be 100% sure my daughter will always be in my custody, weekends and every other holiday won't cut it for me. If the laws were fair I wouldn't have to do it. But I am still just justifying my manipulitive ways, which really aren't justifiable.
But think about the statement, "If a women acts like a man, treat her like one." The reverse would be, "If a man acts like a women, treat him like one." Society, like it or not, is getting more and more sexually equal. Women can be the boss and be stern without getting the b***h label. Men can shave their chests and still think they are men. Gay men will soon have the muscle stereotype ("Did you see how muscley that guy was? He must be gay."). Men are getting more feminine and girls are getting more masculine.
Think how society was in accourdance to gender in 1905. Seperate Spheres was the big liberal and progresive gender philosophy. The big feminist groups were fighting to restrict women from working. Sufferage was definitely the biggest issue, but working was the second.
Some women groups that sponsored or advocated less stringent work environments for women (because woman not working was out of the question) were the National Consumer’s League and the Woman’s Trade Union League (founded in 1890 and 1903 respectively). In 1908 the case “Muller v. Oregon” was approved by the Supreme Court that defended the constitutionality of limiting the hours a woman could work. Louis Brandeis (the future Justice and the one Brandeis University in MA is named after) defended the case.
Brandeis and the women’s group viciously defended the law due to what they claim is the fact that woman are “in general weaker than men in muscular strength and in nervous energy.” They claimed that women also needed further protection because of their motherhood roles. After the fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Company in 1911 that killed 146 workers that were mostly female a lot of State's jumped on board. By 1917 every state but nine had laws restricting the hours women could work. Victory rang in the halls of Liberty for the prominent women’s movements.
That was less than 100 years ago. Now look just 40 years ago to 1965. Look at the shows and movies. Look at how perscribed the roles of men and women were.
Things are changing rapidly. Too fast for the laws to keep up with. Having a penis doesn't mean a male is a man. If hitting a women that acts like a man is accceptable, than hitting or treating homosexual men disrespectfully isn't either. And since a good and decent girl needs protection and security, gay men should be allowed to marry each other because we need to treat them like women. And we wouldn't want any law that forced women to fornicate outside the bounds of holy matrimony. Then the domestic violence laws wouldn't have been impacted by the anti-gay marriage law.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:06 am |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
How do you know that stacking all the chips in your favor is not what saved your marriage?
True, there may have been some apologizing, making up, counseling, and promises to do better followed up by action, but can you say for a certainty that the change in attitude wasn't prompted by your having some or all of the chips in your favor. People say all sorts of things, but if you watch their actions you will see that they seldom starts fights they think they will lose. Seldom does a person want to follow through on a divorce when they think they are the one that will be going to the cleaners.
About the statement "If a she acts like a man, treat her like one." It was spoken in the context of a woman hitting a man. The idea being that if a woman felt that she was strong enough to hit you as though she were a man, then you hit her back as though she were a man and she will soon realize that she is not a man and act accordingly. Personally, I believe that getting a woman to yield to physical strength requires far less muscle than one would use for another man. I guess that is not really treating her like a man.
You, Roqua, made the statement that, "Society, like it or not, is getting more and more sexually equal." That, I believe, is the flaw in our logic. Society is not getting more and more sexually equal. We still have two genders. Both men and women have the same, wants, needs, abilities, etc. as they had 1000 years ago. What is happening is society is trying to treat men and women as though they are exactly the same. This works much of the time because men and women are similar, but not all the time because they are truly different. In some cases like, domestic relationships, viewing men and women as the same never works, because domestic relationships are based on the differences.
A man acting feminine doesn't change the fact that he is a man. The same goes for a woman. Each gender has its own nature. For whatever reason, women will stay with someone who is brutally beating them. The average man won't do that. If a man loses a series of fights to the same person he will either, 1) avoid this opponent or 2) seek out and attack this opponent. He will see this opponent as an adversary until he feels the threat has been dealt with. A woman can be 0 for 100 in fights with her significant other and she will still chase after him claiming that she is in love with him even though he brutally beat her every weekend for two years.
Point of view 1
Treating men and women as the same says that if she chooses to keep going back there really is no abuse. Each occurence is just a simple fight. She is over 17, she goes to and stays with him by choice, no big deal.
Point of view 2
The principle of recoginizing men and women as different says...This is an abuse. It is not reasonable to expect an average woman to react as a man would. The average woman will put up with an unacceptable amount of physical abuse for too much time before she decides to leave, especially if she has not been educated to react to this specific scenario. Because of these reasons the law should afford women protection beyond what it affords a man walking down the street past his enemy's house.
Until now, the law tried to force equal treatment in most facets of life but in a few like domestic relationships it took the latter point of view, while claiming all parties were treated as the same.
The gay and homosexual lobby is now forcing the law to deal with the consequences of recognizing both genders as the same. Marriage between people of the same gender is the natural result of seeing the world from point of view one.
Now, states have laws on the books designed to limit the awarding of marital rights and privileges without accepting point of view 2. It may fly for most cases, but in extreme cases like the one above it won't work. It's like Newton's Laws of Physics vs. Einstein's Theroy of Relatively. In most cases they are the same, in extreme cases Newton breaks down but Einstein still works. I think it is the same way with Point of view 2, it holds in extreme cases where Point of view 1 breaks down.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Thu Apr 07, 2005 5:14 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I couldn't disagree more strongly with your point of view 2. I regognize and accept that there are physical differences as well as mental and emotional differences between the genders. But stupid is stupid. Any women that stays with an abusive husband/boyfriend is just stupid. There are so many avenues to safely get out of a relationship like that any women that does not persue them is a retard.
It all comes down to risk vs. reward. In generations past the reward was getting out an abusive relationship. The risk was possible poverty for yourself and chidlren if any. Now adays the reward is the same, and the risk is non existant.
If a woman chooses to stay in an abusive relationship, that is exactly what she does--chooses. I see no reason to make gender-baised laws to further protect the stupid from themselves. I stongly believe that a women that stays in an abusive relationship is stupid, retarded, and does not need laws to protect her from herself. What she needs is more intelligence. And since stupid people don't suddenly wake up smart, what she really needs is to be naturally selected.
Of course, this is all based on the US culture. Obviously there are some cultures and countries that have no exits for abused women, but in the US this is now not the case. It used to be, like for instance my grandmother (and mother) is an Italian immigrant. My grandfather beat her regularly when he was drunk. She went to see her priest and the father told her to stop doing whatever is pissing her husband off and making him hit her.
That was in the 50's. My mother would never tolerate a man hitting her, because she is not retarded and she knows she has exits readily and easily available to her (as every conscious women does that doesn't live under a rock). If my father ever even thought about laying a hand on her, she would be gone. Again, because she is not retarded. I don't know any women that would ever stay in a relationship with a man that hit them, because none of the girls I know are retards. If I ever hit my wife, she would be gone. Even if I hit her to protect myself. She still whines about the time I pushed her down to get her to stop hitting me.
The laws and outlets couldn't be stacked more in a women's favor. If a women so chooses not to utilize the highly favourable system, she might actually deserve a beating for being stupid. If sense doesn't make sense to her, than maybe it can be beat into her. Even if there where no domestic abuse laws, just regular assault and battery laws that treated genders equally, the women would still have all the cards stacked in their favor and have the same avanues of escape.
Its like selling your food stamps for crack and then complaining your hungry. You could blame the drug dealer somehow, but I personally view the buyer as a retard. But now we are just arguijng semantics. I will never view, or be able to view, a women in the US as a victim if she is in an abusive relationship and takes no action (unless she has a larger plan and will eventually benefit from the abuse).
I still don't see why there needs to be any domestic violence charges when battery charges will handle every situation of adult on adult violence perfectly well.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:27 pm |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:42 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
