|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
I don't have any idea how to respond to ANY of the above. Wow.
So I'll merely point out that using the Forums to pimp your own Hubbage is totally against site rules 'n' stuff. Just sayin'.
Did you suggest somewhere in there that dogs and cats can get married?
Did I really suggest that?
What I wanted to say is if we make the principle of healthy and meaningful living our life principle, we have to do away with the institution of matrimony just because this institution fails to harmonise with this principle; not because cats and dogs have the peculiar custom of getting married. Nor is it because cats and dogs don't get married for having sex or procreation that I view nonmarital sexuality, whether it's based on passion or sheer desire, as a healthy and normal practice. I view it as healthy and normal just because it doesn't rest on considerations like caste, class, status, power, possessions, etc, etc, i.e. considerations other than love or desire. On the other hand, a true marriage, not a travesty of a marriage, is bound to be a marriage of convenience; that means a true marriage must be based on some consideration other than love or sexual urges. Or else, your marriage must turn farcical.
I'll get right onto that. It's a mixed breed marriage though. Myself, I am in a polyamorous marriage with the sofa and my TV.
As well as the interesting cats and dogs stuff, the hub is LONG. Probably the longest Hub in the history of Hubpages at over 20,000 words (I kid you not). It might be worth publishing it as a book on Amazon Kindle?
Hi Beth - I see you are visiting from Bubblews! I didn't actually read all the Hub, but trust me, there is a lot of it and I did a word count on it. I shall save reading the whole thing for a special occasion. I do think its the sort of thing you might enjoy
Ive been trying to close my bubblews account for a few weeks. I sent them two letters requesting this, but I don't think they've done it yet... although I haven't tried to sign on in a few days so maybe they have. Who knew it would be so hard to change your mind?
Why do you want to close the account? Do you find Bubblews doesn't work for you? Certainly things are looking a bit better here, traffic wise, but I'm keeping my options open!
I felt disconnected there. It felt like I was only making money on some sort of technicality, not because anyone had read or cared about my work... not that anyone here necessarily does, but it just feels so sterile and mechanical there. But that was just my take on it. I'm sure it's different for everyone.
I got about two paragraphs in and my eyes started to glaze over so I bailed out...
You are braver than I. I didn't even want to read the post here on the forum.
As it made your eyes 'glaze over', you were right to have 'bailed out' of it. I'm sorry that my hub failed to engage you. Nevertheless, you ought also to consider the point that mine isn't a poem or a story designed to make an entertaining or amusing reading. It's a serious piece of writing aimed at making a quest for the truth, the plain, whole, and unpleasant truth, and thus enlighten readers. In this work of mine I've dealt with a lot of questions no sensible humans can evade bothering about, e.g. what the true purpose of a true marriage, not a travesty of a marriage, is and ought to be, what the true nature of the institution of matrimony is, whether matrimony is a licence for sex or procreation, whether love is reconcilable with matrimony, whether matrimony fits in with the principle of healthy and meaningful living, what meaningful part matrimony performs in an individual's life or in society, whether matrimony is society-friendly or society-unfriendly, whether matrimony is anti-feminine, whether a working woman's marriage is to be regarded as true or a travesty, whether matrimony has got anything meaningful for the poor or proletarians, whether it makes sense for a sensible man to get married, whether it becomes a civilized human at all to indulge in the luxury of matrimony, whether the Communists' defence for their indulgence in the luxury of marriage and family is defensible, et cetera, et cetera. Are the answers to all these questions known to you? You may not agree to spend your precious time on any work of mine. But the truth is inescapable and invincible. If my views aren't wrong and as they concern your sexuality that happens to be inseparable from your normal and healthy life, you might not be able to evade them for long, as I view it. You might find some paragraphs or parts boring. But that shouldn't be a sensible reason you should abandon reading, I reckon.
I regret my failure to make sense of 'TL; DR'. Please explain it.
(Internet) too long; didn’t read. Used to indicate that one did not read a (long) text, or to mark a short summary of an overly long text.
Hi Rik- Yes, it's 'LONG'. But the title and the topic are both 'LONG' too, aren't they?
Well, if that was what marriage was all about (a bureaucratic chastity belt) I would agree that it sucks too. Fortunately it isn't.
May I seek a little elaboration of how your view , i.e. marriage is 'a bureaucratic chastity belt', relates to mine. As I view it, the institution of matrimony really 'sucks'. Your comment ('Fortunately, it isn't.') manifestly clashes with my views. Would you elaborate it too?
You assume marriage relates to assured paternity. a.k.a. stops females from sleeping with other people.
Seems pretty obvious to me. \
I on the other hand watch Jerry Springer.
Reading between the lines of your brief observation, I've understood that by 'females' you've meant married women and by 'other people' men other than their hubbies, right? The point is in order to assure your hubby the paternity of your kids, you mustn't engage in any liaisons with 'other people'. This prompted you to comment that matrimony is 'a bureaucratic chastity belt', and that 'it sucks', right? So far I think I can agree with you. But then, you let loose this comment: 'Fortunately, it isn't.' You didn't elaborate it. You seem to have meant by 'it' the silly stuff people indulge in today in the name of matrimony, in which the married women have got a lot of freedom to engage in liaisons with 'other people'. And you appear to stand for such things, right? That means you're all for married women 'sleeping with other people', right? If this is the case, then what I'd like to ask first is whether you're sure whether such a 'marriage' is a true marriage, not a travesty of a marriage. The marriage that fails to serve a meaningful purpose is, as I view it, a travesty of a marriage, isn't it? In my 'A Treatise on MARRIAGE, MORALITY, and SEX' I've discussed this point. The gratification of your passion or desire, for which you needn't get married at all, cannot be the 'meaningful purpose' a perfect marriage must serve. Why should a sensible woman that stands for sexual freedom get into a travesty of a marriage if she wants to live a healthy and meaningful life?
Marriage assures nothing about paternity. Only a DNA test can do that.
Married women are as free to sleep around as anyone else.
You've then clarified your view of 'marriage'. You're both for indulging in 'marriage' and for enjoying your freedom to engage in extramarital sex. And you believe this sort of 'marriage' is true marriage. Would you please state the rationale for your stance? What meaningful purpose do you expect this sort of 'marriage' to serve?
Expecting signing a certificate marriage to ensure your child is your biological offspring is naive at best. If you think that is the sum total of what marriage is, is equally myopic.
There is no true marriage or false marriage, just what two people make of it and what it is under the law.
In fact it arguably does the exact opposite of what you suggest (ensuring paternity) as it legally requires the husband to support the child, whether it is biologically his or not.
Your non-myopic view of marriage, as I've understood it, is that 'Marriage assures nothing about paternity,' and that 'Married women are as free to sleep around as anyone else,' right? And you're not in the least bothered about what meaningful purpose this sort of 'marriage' is expected to serve in your life or your partner's, right? You're not in the least bothered, either, about whether this sort of 'marriage' fits in with the principle of healthy and meaningful living, right?
Would you agree with me on the point that the 'marriage' that fails to serve a meaningful purpose is a travesty of a marriage?
You also hold the view that there's 'no true marriage or false marriage'. Madam, are you sure that this is a sensible idea? This is like saying there's no rainy day nor any non-rainy day or saying there's no red rose nor any non-red rose. Such statements, as I view it, are plain nonsensical. Days can definitely be classed either as rainy days or non-rainy days, can't they? In a place, e.g. the netherworld, where there exists eternal darkness and time has come to a complete standstill, it is possible you'd encounter no rainy days nor any non-rainy days. Similarly, only in a world where the institution of matrimony is no longer in existence you may hope to find 'no true marriage or false marriage', I reckon.
The 'husband' that consents, being well aware that it might not be his biological child, to support it can't be viewed as a sensible guy, can he? I wonder what meaningful thing a sensible woman should expect to derive from her marriage to such a guy.
Finally, I should like to know whether you're concerned at all with the principle of living a healthy and meaningful life.
I can see why you are against marriage. You have a very narrow, religiously-based and conservative view of it. Perhaps if you realized that adult people use marriage in myriad ways you would realize what a great thing it is. The one thing it cannot do is the one thing you seem to think it can: put a padlock on a woman's vagina.
You've again evaded replying to the question of what meaningful purpose you expect the sort of thing which you view as neither-true-nor-false marriage to serve in your own or your partner's life. You've also evaded responding to my point that you're not in the least bothered about whether your neither-true-nor-false marriage fits in with the principle of healthy and meaningful living. Further, not only have you evaded stating what meaningful thing you expect to gain from such a silly thing you view as 'marriage', you're also silent on the question whether you're at all interested in the healthy and meaningful way of life.
Labelling my view of true marriage 'narrow, religiously-based and conservative' is a silly evasive sophistry. Recourse to evasions or sophistries is a silly self-deceptive bid, as I view it, to escape the inescapable truth.
As regards your last point, I should like to point out that the plain truth is feminine freedom is just incompatible with the institution of matrimony, and that matrimony is just reduced to a farce if the woman fails to assure the paternity of her kids.
I feel you ought to be rewarded for all the effort you've put into arguing with people just to generate some internal traffic to your hub. Here is the precious link you've been barred from posting.
You should also mention this hub is over 20,000 words in length - probably the longest hub in the history of Hubpages!
Thank you for the response. I should like to hear something more from you.
Well, it wasn't much of a response considering the forum mods snip-snipped my link is if it were the flea-bitten testicles of a stray dog brought into an animal shelter. My hubberscore -- aka worth as a human being in integer form -- was mysteriously docked 13 points after attempting to provide some reference for this discussion since the original post was rather idiotically deleted.
If you would like to hear something more from me, it will only be the phrase "flea-bitten testicles" so as to provide the forum mods with an actual reason for meting out the petty punishments that give their life meaning. Can't wait to see puffy-head on a segway!
There's an exclusive hubtitle if anyone wants it...
How to prevent flea-bitten testicles on a stray dog
Just remember to link to the math guy's profile.
My hubberscore also fell off considerably very recently, 'mysteriously'. I think the forum moderators ought to to let us know the reasons for such phenomena and thus help us take care to avoid such things in the future.
I don't understand the rationale for the deletion of 'the original post' in question. As the forum moderators don't disapprove of the discussion on this topic, what's wrong with 'the original post'? A clarification of this point is solicited.
If people would quit bumping, the thread would go away. Anyway, looks like it's been moved here:
http://randygodwin.hubpages.com/hub/A-P … t-12230550
The link was snipped for you for the same reason as for OP.
by Prakash RnP4 years ago
What's your view of healthy and meaningful living? Who are for and who are against this principle?I believe if we practise the principle of leading a healthy and meaningful life wholeheartedly, we can change ours into a...
by Prakash RnP4 years ago
How to explain so poor response to my query: What's your view of healthy and meaningful living?Two days back I posted these questions: What's your view of healthy and meaningful living? Who are for and Who are against...
by ThunderKeys6 years ago
In recent major survey, 40% of US adults and 50% of young Americans agreed with the statement: "Marriage is a thing of the past". Do you agree or disagree with this statement about the institution of marriage?...
by Brett Winn5 years ago
Is marriage more than just a civil union? In what way?I seem to hear a lot of debate these days as to whether marriage is an institution that belongs solely to the church (in origin) and whether (or not) a civil union...
by JillEM7 years ago
I have mixed feelings about a Presbyterian convocation recently held. At least they have tabled the discussion of the nature of marriage for another few years before rushing off the deep end like they have done...
by prettydarkhorse7 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_declining_marriageThe family as a social institution is facing a lot of changes in the recent decades. For one, the definition and mechanisms of family is changing. There is a trend towards...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.