my previous story caused dc_gurl to comment about PRATHIK's (action/reaction) towards MARRIAGE:

so i thought this should be a NEW DISCUSSION. pls. people pls. contribute (o: we will all be wiser with the insight.

Why getting married is IMPORTANT?
When is it a TIME??
Why one should ??
What are expectations? etc etc etc...

obviously populating the world legally would be a good reason to get married.....

Having sex and not paying on the spot can be the other reason of marriage......

i am sure its not for the free sex... license for sex or producing kids...

it could/had be done is a lot of other ways as well right???

It's for LOVE stupid :)
Sex just comes in between.

LOL. Hasayoooo. Yesto thakit din pachi hahaha.

So can't we throw away what comes in between love?:p

The last I REALLY THOUGHT about it; "making love" encompassed both.

So can we agree on MAKING LOP ;) being a defining criteria for marriage?

-Indisguise:)

It's Inheritance. Stupid

Extracts from The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, by Frederick Engels
The history of the family dates from 1861, from the publication of Bachofen's Mutterrecht. [Mother-right, matriarchate -- Ed.] In this work the author advances the following propositions:
1. That originally man lived in a state of sexual promiscuity, to describe which Bachofen uses the mistaken term "hetaerism";
2. that such promiscuity excludes any certainty of paternity, and that descent could therefore be reckoned only in the female line, according to mother-right, and that this was originally the case amongst all the peoples of antiquity;
3. that since women, as mothers, were the only parents of the younger generation that were known with certainty, they held a position of such high respect and honor that it became the foundation, in Bachofen's conception, of a regular rule of women (gynaecocracy);
4. that the transition to monogamy, where the woman belonged to one man exclusively, involved a violation of a primitive religious law (that is, actually a violation of the traditional right of the other men to this woman), and that in order to expiate this violation or to purchase indulgence for it the woman had to surrender herself for a limited period.

CHAPTER 2: THE FAMILY
(? 2.0.1) Morgan, who spent a great part of his life among the Iroquois Indians -- settled to this day in New York State -- and was adopted into one of their tribes (the Senecas), found in use among them a system of consanguinity which was in contradiction to their actual family relationships. There prevailed among them a form of monogamy easily terminable on both sides, which Morgan calls the "pairing family." The issue of the married pair was therefore known and recognized by everybody: there could be no doubt about whom to call father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister. But these names were actually used quite differently. The Iroquois calls not only his own children his sons and daughters, but also the children of his brothers; and they call him father. The children of his sisters, however, he calls his nephews and nieces, and they call him their uncle. The Iroquois woman, on the other hand, calls her sisters' children, as well as her own, her sons and daughters, and they call her mother. But her brothers' children she calls her nephews and nieces, and she is known as their aunt. Similarly, the children of brothers call one another brother and sister, and so do the children of sisters. A woman's own children and the children of her brother, on the other hand, call one another cousins. And these are not mere empty names, but expressions of actual conceptions of nearness and remoteness, of equality and difference in the degrees of consanguinity: these conceptions serve as the foundation of a fully elaborated system of consanguinity through which several hundred different relationships of one individual can be expressed. What is more, this system is not only in full force among all American Indians (no exception has been found up to the present), but also retains its validity almost unchanged among the aborigines of India, the Dravidian tribes in the Deccan and the Gaura tribes in Hindustan. To this day the Tamils of southern India and the Iroquois Seneca Indians in New York State still express more than two hundred degrees of consanguinity in the same manner. And among these tribes of India, as among all the American Indians, the actual relationships arising out of the existing form of the family contradict the system of consanguinity.
(? 2.0.2) How is this to be explained? In view of the decisive part played by consanguinity in the social structure of all savage and barbarian peoples, the importance of a system so widespread cannot be dismissed with phrases. When a system is general throughout America and also exists in Asia among peoples of a quite different race, when numerous instances of it are found with greater or less variation in every part of Africa and Australia, then that system has to be historically explained, not talked out of existence, as McLennan, for example, tried to do. The names of father, child, brother, sister are no mere complimentary forms of address; they involve quite definite and very serious mutual obligations which together make up an essential part of the social constitution of the peoples in question.
(? 2.0.3) The explanation was found. In the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii) there still existed in the first half of the nineteenth century a form of family in which the fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, uncles and aunts, nephews and nieces were exactly what is required by the American and old Indian system of consanguinity. But now comes a strange thing. Once again, the system of consanguinity in force in Hawaii did not correspond to the actual form of the Hawaiian family. For according to the Hawaiian system of consanguinity all children of brothers and sisters are without exception brothers and sisters of one another and are considered to be the common children not only of their mother and her sisters or of their father and his brothers, but of all the brothers and sisters of both their parents without distinction. While, therefore, the American system of consanguinity presupposes a more primitive form of the family which has disappeared in America, but still actually exists in Hawaii, the Hawaiian system of consanguinity, on the other hand, points to a still earlier form of the family which, though we can nowhere prove it to be still in existence, nevertheless must have existed; for otherwise the corresponding system of consanguinity could never have arisen.
" The family [says Morgan] represents an active principle. It is never stationary, but advances from a lower to a higher form as society advances from a lower to a higher condition.... Systems of consanguinity, on the contrary, are passive; recording the progress made by the family at long intervals apart, and only changing radically when the family has radically changed." [ Morgan, p. 444. -- Ed.]
"And," adds Marx, "the same is true of the political, juridical, religious, and philosophical systems in general." While the family undergoes living changes, the system of consanguinity ossifies; while the system survives by force of custom, the family outgrows it. But just as Cuvier could deduce from the marsupial bone of an animal skeleton found near Paris that it belonged to a marsupial animal and that extinct marsupial animals once lived there, so with the same certainty we can deduce from the historical survival of a system of consanguinity that an extinct form of family once existed which corresponded to it.
(? 2.0.4) The systems of consanguinity and the forms of the family we have just mentioned differ from those of today in the fact that every child has more than one father and mother. In the American system of consanguinity, to which the Hawaiian family corresponds, brother and sister cannot be the father and mother of the same child; but the Hawaiian system of consanguinity, on the contrary, presupposes a family in which this was the rule. Here we find ourselves among forms of family which directly contradict those hitherto generally assumed to be alone valid. The traditional view recognizes only monogamy, with, in addition, polygamy on the part of individual men, and at the very most polyandry on the part of individual women; being the view of moralizing philistines, it conceals the fact that in practice these barriers raised by official society are quietly and calmly ignored. The study of primitive history, however, reveals conditions where the men live in polygamy and their wives in polyandry at the same time, and their common children are therefore considered common to them all -- and these conditions in their turn undergo a long series of changes before they finally end in monogamy. The trend of these changes is to narrow more and more the circle of people comprised within the common bond of marriage, which was originally very wide, until at last it includes only the single pair, the dominant form of marriage today.
(? 2.0.5) Reconstructing thus the past history of the family, Morgan, in agreement with most of his colleagues, arrives at a primitive stage when unrestricted sexual freedom prevailed within the tribe, every woman belonging equally to every man and every man to every woman. Since the eighteenth century there had been talk of such a primitive state, but only in general phrases. Bachofen -- and this is one of his great merits -- was the first to take the existence of such a state seriously and to search for its traces in historical and religious survivals. Today we know that the traces he found do not lead back to a social stage of promiscuous sexual intercourse, but to a much later form -- namely, group marriage. The primitive social stage of promiscuity, if it ever existed, belongs to such a remote epoch that we can hardly expect to prove its existence directly by discovering its social fossils among backward savages. Bachofen's merit consists in having brought this question to the forefront for examination.
...
(? 2.1.1) According to Morgan, from this primitive state of promiscuous intercourse there developed, probably very early:

HOUSTON ONE ON ONE..I'M SSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO JHYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP TO READ ALL UR STUFF....MUST BE SOME GOOD THOUGTS,..DON'T CARE A SHIIIT JUS LIVE UR LIFE DUDE

Trust ......n shoulder to rest on !!

Listen to Hush, and listen to song, can live with or without you. Helps a lot. By the way am I making sense ? Hmmmm I am drunk without drinking. Hmmm.

Marriage quotes
Marriage is not a word. It is a sentence--a life sentence.
Marriage is very much like a violin; after the sweet music is over, the strings are attached.
Marriage is love. Love is blind. Therefore, marriage is an institution for the blind.
Marriage is an institution in which a man loses his Bachelor's Degree and the woman gets her Masters.

hey husp.,
what happened to that 100% 200 proof..??? u forgot already?? or hiding...

where and when in BOSTON? dude.. comon...

r u serious??? no no no don't funk with my heart.....make that liver

hushp,
deal is a deal.. so i am damn serious..
so name a place, time etc etc...

things to think about...i'm twice ur age..maybe 5 times..ehhheehealso...i'm no heroine..i'm kinda villian..hhahahaha..like a witich
so i'll be hanging out with couple of murderers in mantra, tonite..
drink's on the house (for me at least)..so stay away ...............don't wanna get bewitched ...

hushp..
it does not matter... . deal is a deal... one has to fulfill... okey.. IT IS MATTER OF PRINCIPLE.... . anyway.. let me know about the time and date...
WHEN AND WHERE????????????? once again...

hmmm... whats going on in this thread... will someone explain to me in short.. you know a sorta summary abt whats going on!!:s

damn you missed you lost the game

hushp,
wow.. congrats.. and have fun..
"u'll have to accept defeat okey" since u r not willing to engage.. (o:

gud luk in Nepal