Trump accused of raping his wife in the 90s

[The Romulan Republic]

In other words, "People who defend spousal rape are horrible, so they should be raped." You really are a piece of work. Yeah yeah, I'm sure you were just joking. But you know, maybe making rape jokes in this context, of all places, is in poor taste?

[Flagg]

Oh, and cuntmanderjones: You've never had your ass kicked for saying something incredibly stupid, misogynistic, and offensive to someone on a personal level, or for any other reason, have you? Well, my advice as far as molding you into a better person, is for you to go to a group counseling session for victims of rape while in the military, spew your disgusting necrotic appendix discharge, and let every blow that rains down upon you be a lesson unto itself.

[Flagg]

In other words, "People who defend spousal rape are horrible, so they should be raped." You really are a piece of work. Yeah yeah, I'm sure you were just joking. But you know, maybe making rape jokes in this context, of all places, is in poor taste?

I said no such thing. And I will not discuss the matter with you beyond suggesting that sometimes people who lack empathy for rape and murder victims are the lowest form of life short of rapists and murderers themselves and that I don't care if it hurts your delicate sensibilities if I show my disgust at such individuals by painting a mind picture of them in the place of the victims. Especially when I make sure that everyone knows it's not something I'm actually advocating.

This is not a "miss manners" forum and your vendetta is getting old. Any issues you have with me, take to the mods, because I'm not going waste time on waste.

[The Romulan Republic]

In other words, "People who defend spousal rape are horrible, so they should be raped." You really are a piece of work. Yeah yeah, I'm sure you were just joking. But you know, maybe making rape jokes in this context, of all places, is in poor taste?

I said no such thing.

Obviously those weren't the exact words you used, but I summarized what you said fairly accurately, and your words are here for everyone to see.

"Here's an idea, let's have a shotgun wedding between him and a nice strong lady with a collection of 18'' strap-ons and see how he feels after the honeymoon when he never takes a normal shit again. If only dreams could come true..."

You may not have been intending to say that anyone should actually do such a thing, which I why I haven't decided to report you, but you clearly expressed desire/wishful thinking for it. And even if you take it entirely as a joke, its one that is in very poor taste, especially in this context.

I have a dim view of anyone who finds rape amusing or a suitable punishment for anyone. If you have a problem with that, fuck off. And in general, fuck off.

And I will not discuss the matter with you beyond suggesting that sometimes people who lack empathy for rape and murder victims are the lowest form of life short of rapists and murderers themselves and that I don't care if it hurts your delicate sensibilities if I show my disgust at such individuals by painting a mind picture of them in the place of the victims.

I have a very low opinion of rape and murder. Which is why I took exception to your post about how it would be nice if someone was raped. So don't try to play moral high ground with me, hypocrite. Some of us value moral consistency/integrity.

Especially when I make sure that everyone knows it's not something I'm actually advocating.

If I thought you were actually advocating it, I'd have probably reported you to the moderators for inciting violent crime.

This is not a "miss manners" forum

No shit. However, I'm not aware of any rule against finding your post repellent and hypocritical and stating as much.

and your vendetta is getting old. Any issues you have with me, take to the mods,

I didn't accuse you of violating any rule, so why would I do that? If that was unclear it was unintentional, and I hope I have clarified my position on the matter.

I just expressed my personal disagreement with something you said. Is that not permitted according to moderator Flagg?

Also, disagreeing with you and stating as much is not a vendetta, you pathetic, defamatory piece of shit who plays the same disingenuous card over and over again. I'm rather tired of being the subject of this line of attack from you.

because I'm not going waste time on waste.

Concession accepted.

[K. A. Pital]

Look, TRR, spousal rape is pretty much what happens only to females. Males are rarely if ever subject to the humiliation of forced penetration in marriage. Which is why douchebags completely lack empathy for victims of what they see as a totally legal thing and not a crime. Which is why for a massive timespan spousal rape was not a crime in the West.

It does not literally mean Trump should get raped (I doubt it would make him a better man, for I truly think he is a cartoon villain gone live).

As a side note, stop singling out Flagg. More than a few people here, myself included, left one-off comments about someone sufficiently terrible from the political elite falling under a bus, wishing them "hurry up and die", going to prison where he would be obviously subjected to violence, etc. If you want to raise a general issue with that (and often this tough-guy rethoric is really not necessary, sure enough), you are free to do so.

[The Romulan Republic]

Look, TRR, spousal rape is pretty much what happens only to females.

I'm not arguing that.

Males are rarely if ever subject to the humiliation of forced penetration in marriage. Which is why douchebags completely lack empathy for victims of what they see as a totally legal thing and not a crime. Which is why for a massive timespan spousal rape was not a crime in the West.

Likewise, I'm not arguing that (I don't know the numbers but I find it quite credible that victims of spousal rape are predominantly female and that that factors in to some men who are scumbags condoning it).

I'm not sure what relevance this has to anything I said, unless you consider it an argument for making spousal rape jokes about men as some sort of twisted campaign to increase empathy (an effect I very much doubt it will have).

It does not literally mean Trump should get raped (I doubt it would make him a better man, for I truly think he is a cartoon villain gone live).

I doubt their is anyone who has ever been made a better person by being raped, and I find the thought repulsive.

But yes, Trump is pretty much a live cartoon villain.

In any case, the argument was about some dumb ass lawyer, not Trump himself.

Edit: Also, anyone who needs to be told its illegal to rape their spouse to know its wrong is a piece of shit.

[Thanas]

TRR, stop shitting up the thread, I already got cmdrjones in the crosshairs, no need for you to disturb him getting his rope.

[Flagg]

Just for the record, and this is a painful subject because the person who deserves my special attention died in 2007 (though I did not find out until 2013), but my mother was a victim of spousal rape on more than one occasion when she was in the army and posted to Fort Hood in Texas with my sperm donor who she happened to marry 6 years before my birth. Of course it was perfectly legal at the time (late '70s, early '80s) and remained so until late 1994. So, sore spot. That's why unless I see a point no one has made I'm going to abstain from further posts in this thread.

[cmdrjones]

Just to save time: Jones, do you think it's worse for spousal rape to be legal, or for a small increase in divorce because controlling hatfuckers can't rape their wives without going to prison? If you're opposed to spousal rape enough to be willing to see an increase in divorce, why the fuck do you bring it up?

Not that I'm entirely convinced you actually believe the shit you spew. By this point I've concluded you're a troll that gets his jollies by pretending to be every horrible conservative stereotype there is.

Regarding divorce: It can get ugly as hell, it can cause a lot of misery... But not having it would be worse. Believe me, I've seen what happens when a woman effectively has no recourse against a shitty husband. My aunt is married to one of Warren Jeff's brothers. You know, the polygamist dude that's in prison. In that fucked up cult, women are property and have no realistic response to it all. I can give you plenty of details of why, but it boils down to women being treated as property and not having a social support net because the cults gather in one place so the entire local government is more corrupt than fucking Chicago.

Not having divorce would be worse than it existing and occasionally being misused.

Who to reply to? So much to do, so much to do... AH!! A good question!

Your question, the way iti s phrased is about two steps away from "when did you stop beating your wife sir?" but I see what you mean. I oppose divorce, but I also oppose abuse in marriage (of course), so for me it's 6 of one, half dozen of the other, but I would RATHER see #1 people marry those whom love them and that they love and thus cut down on the whole abuse thing in the first place, and that people separate and perhaps reconcile rather than divorce (God hates divorce remember?)
now, for the other half of your question (implying that evil evil hatfuckers must be DROOLING over the opportunity to rape thier wifes!) I would in fact rather divorce be legal than some wird cult to sun around abusing women and raping them, BUT that being said, what you guys keep describing is simply a strawman that has very little to do with how Christian marriage is supposed to work. Do people fail at reaching that standard? Of course! Christianity has that kinda built in BTW, its like a regular thing to admit to being a scumbag. Does that mean I support the collapse of marriage after marriage because people suck? Far from it.


Oh and as for thanas:

http://ulwazi.org/index.php?title=Zulu_Courting_Customs



"In the Zulu culture once a woman confesses her love to a male there are steps to be followed. These steps are taken to make sure that the woman does not involve herself in another relationship. However, both parties should show their willingness to be committed to each other. One of the main reasons for this is that once the woman fall pregnant, it should be known who is the father of the expected child." Page 1 paragraph 1 sentence 1

http://us-store.warlordgames.com/produc ... d-set-1879

"The military system formed units into married and unmarried units, so a cadre of young men would be forced to remain unmarried on the King's orders until they had ´…_washed their spears´…_ in the blood of their enemies. They are armed with throwing spears, smoothbore muskets and the deadly stabbing short spear whilst their patterned ox-hide shields help identify their parent regiment.

Once they were blooded, and only then, would they sew in the characteristic head ring which is the symbol of a mature and married warrior, showing his much enhanced status in society."

Why would they need to do that? Enhancing status? Washing thier spears? Women having virginity tests? Strange... it almost seems that men and women are held to DIFFERENT standards.


Now lets look at the romans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome

"Marriage in ancient Rome was a strictly monogamous institution: a Roman citizen by law could have only one spouse at a time." page 1, paragraph 1, line 1

"Manus (/ˈmeɪnəs/; Latin: [ˈmanʊs]) was an Ancient Roman type of marriage,[1] of which there were two forms: cum manu and sine manu.[2] In a cum manu marriage, the wife was placed under the legal control of the husband.[1][2] In a sine manu marriage, the wife was still under the legal control of her father.[3]

In both cum manu and sine manu marriages, if both the husband and wife were alieni iuris (persons under patria potestas, that is, under the power of his or her family's pater familias) the marriage could only take place with the approval of both of the patres familias.[3] However, the creation and termination of the marriage somewhat depended on the type of marriage.[3]

Initially cum manu was the only form of marriage but in time the cum manu union faded and only sine manu marriage was widely practiced.[4]"




http://romanmilitary.net/people/marriage/

"Marriage was banned in the early years of the army, and tolerated but not encouraged after Claudius. Still, many (probably over 60%) soldiers posted to frontier areas married local women by the common law, judging from the inscriptions of epitaphs. These marriages were usually respected by the unit the soldier was attached to, but not by the Roman government. However, the sons of a soldier would often join their father's legion, and thus the legion's forces were replenished with the offspring of its own men. This was very advantageous because it gave the son Roman citizenship, which he would otherwise have been denied, because of his unofficial parentage."


Ah so we see that, as I said, marriage started out (remember I said EARLY romans) as very very restrictive, much like the zulus who are separated by thousands of miles and over 1500 years and with absolutley NO contact between the two. The Romans eventually CHANGED their definition of marriage (much as we have) to their very great regret.
So therefore, my orignial point that marriage NOW and marriage in the past were NOT the same, but that the Christian IDEAL of marriage (that donald trump failed to live up to) is more comparable to Marriage in Early Rome and The Zulu nation stands.



Further reading:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/sc ... 110509.pdf

[Thanas]

Oh and as for thanas:

http://ulwazi.org/index.php?title=Zulu_Courting_Customs

"In the Zulu culture once a woman confesses her love to a male there are steps to be followed. These steps are taken to make sure that the woman does not involve herself in another relationship. However, both parties should show their willingness to be committed to each other. One of the main reasons for this is that once the woman fall pregnant, it should be known who is the father of the expected child." Page 1 paragraph 1 sentence 1

http://us-store.warlordgames.com/produc ... d-set-1879

"The military system formed units into married and unmarried units, so a cadre of young men would be forced to remain unmarried on the King's orders until they had ´…_washed their spears´…_ in the blood of their enemies. They are armed with throwing spears, smoothbore muskets and the deadly stabbing short spear whilst their patterned ox-hide shields help identify their parent regiment.

Once they were blooded, and only then, would they sew in the characteristic head ring which is the symbol of a mature and married warrior, showing his much enhanced status in society."

Why would they need to do that? Enhancing status? Washing thier spears? Women having virginity tests? Strange... it almost seems that men and women are held to DIFFERENT standards.


Now lets look at the romans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome

"Marriage in ancient Rome was a strictly monogamous institution: a Roman citizen by law could have only one spouse at a time." page 1, paragraph 1, line 1

"Manus (/ˈmeɪnəs/; Latin: [ˈmanʊs]) was an Ancient Roman type of marriage,[1] of which there were two forms: cum manu and sine manu.[2] In a cum manu marriage, the wife was placed under the legal control of the husband.[1][2] In a sine manu marriage, the wife was still under the legal control of her father.[3]

In both cum manu and sine manu marriages, if both the husband and wife were alieni iuris (persons under patria potestas, that is, under the power of his or her family's pater familias) the marriage could only take place with the approval of both of the patres familias.[3] However, the creation and termination of the marriage somewhat depended on the type of marriage.[3]

Initially cum manu was the only form of marriage but in time the cum manu union faded and only sine manu marriage was widely practiced.[4]"

http://romanmilitary.net/people/marriage/

"Marriage was banned in the early years of the army, and tolerated but not encouraged after Claudius. Still, many (probably over 60%) soldiers posted to frontier areas married local women by the common law, judging from the inscriptions of epitaphs. These marriages were usually respected by the unit the soldier was attached to, but not by the Roman government. However, the sons of a soldier would often join their father's legion, and thus the legion's forces were replenished with the offspring of its own men. This was very advantageous because it gave the son Roman citizenship, which he would otherwise have been denied, because of his unofficial parentage."


Ah so we see that, as I said, marriage started out (remember I said EARLY romans) as very very restrictive, much like the zulus who are separated by thousands of miles and over 1500 years and with absolutley NO contact between the two.

Are you fucking stupid? Did you miss that divorce was a regular occurrence and that physical violence was ground for immediate divorce? You know, exactly like it is today? And that the women was not under the phyiscal control of her husband unless it was a manus marriage, which was only one of three forms of marriage?

The Romans eventually CHANGED their definition of marriage (much as we have) to their very great regret.

Show evidence that they regretted that change. Oh, and please outline the rights of women in marriages under Roman law.


And furthermore, you have yet to justify your views stated on the first page, with regards to benefits of and reasons for marriage.

[Ziggy Stardust]

http://us-store.warlordgames.com/produc ... d-set-1879

"The military system formed units into married and unmarried units, so a cadre of young men would be forced to remain unmarried on the King's orders until they had ´…_washed their spears´…_ in the blood of their enemies. They are armed with throwing spears, smoothbore muskets and the deadly stabbing short spear whilst their patterned ox-hide shields help identify their parent regiment.

Once they were blooded, and only then, would they sew in the characteristic head ring which is the symbol of a mature and married warrior, showing his much enhanced status in society."

Dude ... you are quoting a description of a model on a fucking gaming website. That is not an accurate source of historical information.

[loomer]

I know its been raised, and Thanas has this, but what the fuck? Jones, go sit down and shut up if you're seriously going to use a fucking a wargaming model description as a valid source of info in a debate. It's frankly insulting to me, as someone who specializes in historical and comparative law, that you would do this. It also shows you have no goddamn clue what you're doing.

[The Vortex Empire]

(God hates divorce remember?)

Good thing we're discussing law in secular republics and not theocracies, then.

[Flagg]

I know its been raised, and Thanas has this, but what the fuck? Jones, go sit down and shut up if you're seriously going to use a fucking a wargaming model description as a valid source of info in a debate. It's frankly insulting to me, as someone who specializes in historical and comparative law, that you would do this. It also shows you have no goddamn clue what you're doing.

Frankly, I think it's insulting to every single member of the fucking board because he tried to pull a fast one and went about it very poorly, didn't bother to check what sites his google results gave him, or is the stupidest person that's ever come to this board (and I'm a member here!).

[whackadoodle]

Wow. The drift is strong in this thread, yesss.

Concerning the OP, meh. Maybe he raped her, maybe he didn't. In a divorce where millions were on the line, and where Ivana was being thrown to side for a younger model to boot, I'd be shocked if she didn't claim some form of abuse. It's a common tactic even in much lower-profile divorces, much less where money or custody are on the line.

That being said, I have to disagree that with those holding that spousal rape cannot exist. Being forced into a sexual act is traumatic regardless of the context. Even before legal recognition of this fact, it was informally recognized in the past. Anecdotally, I know that my grandfather and his brothers horse-whipped their brother-in-law for this and other offenses back in the '20s.

There's a reason that family law is considered one of the most soul-destroying careers.

On the topic of divorce,...hmm. The idea that historically the Church didn't allow for divorce is just plain wrong. In cases where there was a breach of the marital contract - adultery - ,separation, annulment or even divorce was allowed. Except for annulment, remarriage was not generally allowed. Laws in the U.S. more or less reflected this until the 20th century.

No-fault divorce, which I believe cmdrjones is mostly referring to, was instituted in the 70's in most states. Many mistakenly believe that it was done so as just another part of the sexual revolution. Instead, it was passed in most states because judges were tired of being lied to. See, around this time there was in upsurge in divorces where one party would claim adultery, the other party would admit to it, and they would split assets and custody amicably. Lying, in other words. No-fault divorce really didn't cause the upsurge of divorces in the 70's and 80's, it was in reaction to it. Hell, divorce is just as common in New York as anywhere else, and they didn't pass no-fault until 2010. And yes, lots of folks had to do the whole pretend adultery thing.

As to what caused the upsurge in divorces, I think that it is mostly due to changes in courtship starting in the 50's. In my grandparents time, no one went "steady". Instead, a girl would be casually courted by several young men, all vetted by her family. The boys, in turn, would be seeing several girls. All interaction was monitored by adults, so sex was mostly out of the question. Gradually, this winnowed down to one-on-one, usually followed by a proposal.

Starting in the 50's this changed as automobiles became more common. Now, couples began to see each other exclusively, and often in unmonitored circumstances. Good for the drive-in theater and cheap creature-feature industry ( you don't think anyone was actually watching those things, right? ).

This change is what I think led to the upsurge in divorces in the 60's and 70's. Before, people got to sample many different personalities, and then to really know someone, without the fever-swamp of sex blinding them. The later courtship pattern caused a lot of people to get married because the other person was their first, or was the first that lasted more than five minutes, or because pregnancy. I think that the late-twentieth century model of courtship led to a lot of marriages between people who, under the earlier model, wouldn't have made it past the first stage.

[Metahive]

Look up the mating laws of the Zulu and the look remarkably like the Early Romans.

Help me out here, but isn't "mating" usually restricted to biology textbooks and animals? I don't like that our resident godbot here is using this sort of terminology with regard to a group of black people.

[Ralin]

Look up the mating laws of the Zulu and the look remarkably like the Early Romans.

Help me out here, but isn't "mating" usually restricted to biology textbooks and animals? I don't like that our resident godbot here is using this sort of terminology with regard to a group of black people.

Yes, but it might be a culture thing. Sort of like how it's (supposedly) common for military people to refer people as 'males' and 'females' despite the terms normally only being used that way in biology textbooks and towards animals.

[TheFeniX]

As to what caused the upsurge in divorces, I think that it is mostly due to changes in courtship starting in the 50's. In my grandparents time, no one went "steady". Instead, a girl would be casually courted by several young men, all vetted by her family. The boys, in turn, would be seeing several girls. All interaction was monitored by adults, so sex was mostly out of the question. Gradually, this winnowed down to one-on-one, usually followed by a proposal.

People went steady all the time. More affluent and socially conscious people did not. There was plenty of fuckin' going on. Plenty of rushed marriages due to unwanted pregnancy. This is not a modern phenomenon.

Starting in the 50's this changed as automobiles became more common. Now, couples began to see each other exclusively, and often in unmonitored circumstances. Good for the drive-in theater and cheap creature-feature industry ( you don't think anyone was actually watching those things, right? ).

Or that the years after the Great Depression and WWII where pretty God damn great comparatively and kids no longer considered marriage as a monetary thing since the world was doing pretty good for itself. Those changes in mentality were mostly due to economic allowances: they had options now. Easy access to vehicles was a side-effect. Poor people out in the stick still had sex with and married whoever was available.

Economic safety nets were also a thing: you no longer had to solely rely on your family and friends for support. Seriously, before the baby boom, what options did women without access to hilarious amounts of money really have other than to marry who their father wanted and bang out a bunch of kids? And once you were married, what incentive was there to leave?

This change is what I think led to the upsurge in divorces in the 60's and 70's. Before, people got to sample many different personalities, and then to really know someone, without the fever-swamp of sex blinding them. The later courtship pattern caused a lot of people to get married because the other person was their first, or was the first that lasted more than five minutes, or because pregnancy. I think that the late-twentieth century model of courtship led to a lot of marriages between people who, under the earlier model, wouldn't have made it past the first stage.

Women have a lot more rights today than they did. It's like blaming abortion being legal for there being more abortions. Of course that's a side effect of legalization. It also probably helps that being pregnant and unwed isn't nearly as socially and economically crippling as it was in the past. Those mothers now have options rather than diving into a marriage they might not want. On the flip side, men also have more options. Abandoning your wife and leaving her destitute made you look like an ass. But since we treat women as people now and give them options, they are capable of taking care of themselves at a level you really didn't see until after WWII. So, there's less social stigma against leaving her if it isn't working out.

Besides, from what I've read from studies done: couples now date on average for 2-3 years before getting married. That's one Hell of a courtship. And, I'm sorry, sexual compatibility is a pretty damned important part of a healthy marriage. So, unless you got married just because a girl can work it like a magician, I don't see adding sex into the courtship as a bad thing.

[Patroklos]

Look up the mating laws of the Zulu and the look remarkably like the Early Romans.

Help me out here, but isn't "mating" usually restricted to biology textbooks and animals? I don't like that our resident godbot here is using this sort of terminology with regard to a group of black people.

The Romans could be pretty diverse, but I doubt most would consider them black people.

[Metahive]

The Zulus are.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Considering the fact that jonesy has exhibited confusion over the differences between "courtship" and "marriage" in this thread, I'm more inclined to attribute his use of "mating" as just more stupidity, rather than racism. Though it isn't like he hasn't said sexist and racist things in other threads.

Besides, from what I've read from studies done: couples now date on average for 2-3 years before getting married. That's one Hell of a courtship.

Not only that, but the average age at which people get married has gone up. In 1960, the average age of marriage for men was 20. It is now 29. For some reason I can't find as thorough figures on average marriage age for women, but that has increased from 23 in 1990 (!) to 27 today. It is worth noting that economic factors tie heavily into this (including the increased propensity for going to college and further higher education).

[Channel72]

Besides, from what I've read from studies done: couples now date on average for 2-3 years before getting married. That's one Hell of a courtship. And, I'm sorry, sexual compatibility is a pretty damned important part of a healthy marriage. So, unless you got married just because a girl can work it like a magician, I don't see adding sex into the courtship as a bad thing.

Yeah, a lot of people date or live together for years without getting married. The advantage of marriage, obviously, is that it comes with lots of legal and financial benefits, like tax deductions and providing more financial options for retirement planning. Also, generally the IRS will look at marriage as more of a "serious commitment", and thus be more likely to be lenient towards married couples who own homes in terms of taxes. Whether or not it's worth it depends on the individual, really. But I think marriage as an institution is becoming more and more, um... "optional" in the first world, at least. Marriage comes with a lot of tax benefits yeah, but there are also liabilities (i.e if your spouse lies about income or something than you are also responsible in the eyes of the IRS.)

I don't think the liabilities are a big deal, of course, but on the flip side, to me the financial advantages of marriage don't seem that impressive either. I think marriage remains more of a "psychological/emotional commitment" that makes separation a very non-casual, "really big deal". But I think a lot of the reasons people get married these days has less to do with any kind of financial benefits and more because "it's just what you're supposed to do", and family/extended-family often pressure you into it, especially if you've been living with your significant other for more than a year or so. But really, non-married couples who live together often have just as much of a psychological, emotional commitment to one another as married couples, even if the state doesn't necessarily recognize their relationship as worthy of a tax deduction.

Regardless, despite all of the financial benefits of marriage, the rate of marriage (versus domestic partnerships) in first world nations is at an all-time low these days. So, what this really means is that all of the financial benefits aren't really seen, for the most part, as that big of an advantage.

As for divorce, the institution of divorce is defintely a good thing, but any particular individual divorce may often be a very bad thing, especially if children are involved. Really, the only major problem with divorce is how it negatively affects children (at least according to most studies which I conveniently won't cite), at least in the short term.

[General Zod]

I don't think the liabilities are a big deal, of course, but on the flip side, to me the financial advantages of marriage don't seem that impressive either. I think marriage remains more of a "psychological/emotional commitment" that makes separation a very non-casual, "really big deal". But I think a lot of the reasons people get married these days has less to do with any kind of financial benefits and more because "it's just what you're supposed to do", and family/extended-family often pressure you into it, especially if you've been living with your significant other for more than a year or so. But really, non-married couples who live together often have just as much of a psychological, emotional commitment to one another as married couples, even if the state doesn't necessarily recognize their relationship as worthy of a tax deduction.

The financial benefits might not seem like that big of a deal, but having two incomes with only one rent payment is a nice perk if you're both working. There's also the benefits of sharing an insurance policy.

[Thanas]

CmdrJones has been given a warning for running away like the little coward he is and insulting the intelligence of everyone who read his drivel.

The next time he does this shit again, a ban is on the table.

[Flagg]

Awe, give him a break, he's been busy!

I know, I'm going to hell. And maybe HoS. But definitely hell.