Re: But seriously...dustymemoriesDecember 5 2005, 19:40:01 UTC
Actually, let me once again, add to the confusion. My mom would exist, since my grandmother (her mother), left my grandfather (her father), but never were divorced. Does living apart really count? My grandmother is technically a widow, since my grandfather died while they were still married, all be it many many years later..
Richard is gonna be lonely with everyone not existing, isn't he? :)
Also, what about couples where only one person wants the divorce, but the other one wishes to stay together? Can the person who wishes to stay married charge the other with "pre meditated murder" (sorry, bad choice of words, but I can't think of what else to call it when a child disappears after birth). It's very Minority Report in the way that you would be able to know when your child would disappear, even though you would not remember the child afterwards. The evidence would be in the pictures left behind!
Also, if this was the case, wouldn't the killing of one spouse to the other be on the rise?
For example, John and Sue are married. The have a child named Nicholas. Sue no longer wants to be married to John, but does not want Nicholas to disappear, so she kills John. Killing John makes her a widow, and not a divorced woman, and therefore, she is no longer "married" to John, yet Nicholas still exist. Call it the "Death Loophole". How would the court system deal with these new laws of existing?
Sue, John, and NicholasmonkeeshrinesDecember 7 2005, 00:10:28 UTC
Ok. I got this one!
I forgot that your grandma never divorced your grandfather. Are/Were your dad's parents still married or widowed? YOU'RE GONNA DISAPPEAR DAMMIT! I DON"T WANT TO BE ALONE!!!!!
Ok, now that that's out of my system...
In this case, the divorce is not in a legal sense, but the spirit of the divorce is still there, and your grandparents may as well have been divorced. It is my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that there was little, if any, communication between your grandmother and grandfather after she left, so in spirit, they were divorced, and the intention to be apart the rest of their life was there. Your mother then wouldn't exist, so I guess you wouldn't either still. Yea! Company!
If only one wants the divorce...Yes, I suppose one spouse could potentially charge the other with attempted or premeditated "murder" if there is proof that the other spouse, and only the other spouse, wanted the divorce.
Now for John, Sue and Nicholas. While we are stretching the limits of reality, if Sue kills John, Sue would die as well. It doesn't matter if she "gets away with it" or not. If she kills him, wants him dead, hires a hit man - anything that she does that intentionally results in his death, she will die at the same moment he does; a murder-suicide if you will. If this was a result of Sue not wanting to be with John anymore, in lieu of divorce, then Nicholas will also be wiped from existence. If she wants to die with him and be with him eternally, Nickie is spared and I guess goes to live with an aunt or something.
If a spouse dies of an unrelated and unintentional cause (whether it was wished or not) then no one but the actual victim of death dies... If John meets with a work related accident before Sue's Mafia connection finishes the job, Sue gets off on a technicality and gets to raise Nick by herself (or with her boink buddy or whatever).
Re: Sue, John, and NicholasdustymemoriesDecember 7 2005, 03:58:09 UTC
Firstly,
My dad's parents are still married, so he would exist. :P Secondly, why would Sue die if she killed John? Her parents are still alive..so I am not getting what you are saying. In this reality, the only way a person would "disappear" is if the person's parents were to divorce.
Also, this whole thing about marriage being an internal idea is nice, but if it is to be mandated by law, it has to be cut and dry. If not, then it gets too opened to interpretation by the people involved. I believe that the courts would say that the only way a child would disappear is if the married couple involved were to sign the divorce papers. It would not matter if the people were apart (emotionally or physically), or not.
Re: Sue, John, and NicholasmonkeeshrinesDecember 8 2005, 02:04:00 UTC
So maybe I cheated a little.
I created a new rule to deter killing one's spouse. Under the initial rules, Sue probably could keep Nick in existence by killing John, and then, yes, spousal killing would be on the rise.
The idea behind this new rule comes from the vow of " 'til death to us part." If one ends that vow intentionally with death as a means to part, then the . To take the life of your life-partner, you take your own life with it. The vow cannot be broken with intentional harm. Ideally, and initially, it was the sacrament of marriage binds the two lives together, and if one dies, the other will shortly follow. However, since accidental death is something that cannot be controlled, it would not be "fair" for Sue to die because John died in an unrelated accident in the event that there was no foul play intended. Maybe I'm setting a double standard, though. Let me know.
In this case, marriage would not be regulated by law as it was. Marriage is an honest vow made between two people to spend the rest of their lives together, whether or not there are papers signed or even as stated under an appropriate deity. If the two fully intend to stay together, vow as such, they might as well be married. If they break that vow, and decide they can't or won't spend the rest of their lives together, then they might as well be divorced. Because your grandmother fully intended to stay far away from your grandfather, the fall into that might as well category. The courts have nothing to do with the vow, only with legal status, which, in the case of homosexual couples, is not a possibility in most places.
This whole scenario is inconsistent with my personal beliefs anyway because same-sex couples would not be able to have children (of one biological parent or the other). Also, I don't know what would happen if a couple got "married", had a child they didn't want, put him or her up for adoption, and then got "divorced". Any suggestions? :-)
Re: Sue, John, and NicholasdustymemoriesDecember 9 2005, 18:55:10 UTC
Hmm...
Maybe in your last scenerio, if that couple was to have a child, then put the child up for adoption, and a gay couple was to adopt, then it is fine. If the gay couple/childless hetero couple was to get "divorced" then the child would return to the age that he/she started from before he/she was adopted..
On a totally unrelated topic, Did you see the pic I sent you under your xmas list comment board? :D
Re: Sue, John, and NicholasmonkeeshrinesDecember 10 2005, 02:16:27 UTC
Ok, I see what you're saying, but...
If the biological parents get divorced, what would then happen to the child? Since they possibly would not have had the child if they had not gotten married, they child would not exist. However, the child is no longer part of their life, but part of a loving family separate from the biological parents. The adopted partent have no control, or (usually) any knowlege, of the "goings and comings" of the biological parents, but could potentially be unable to prevent the disappearance of who is in all respects except biologically, their child.
I also had a thought concerning polygamy. I don't know if I really want to go into that right now; it gets kind of complicated...
Richard is gonna be lonely with everyone not existing, isn't he? :)
Also, what about couples where only one person wants the divorce, but the other one wishes to stay together? Can the person who wishes to stay married charge the other with "pre meditated murder" (sorry, bad choice of words, but I can't think of what else to call it when a child disappears after birth). It's very Minority Report in the way that you would be able to know when your child would disappear, even though you would not remember the child afterwards. The evidence would be in the pictures left behind!
Also, if this was the case, wouldn't the killing of one spouse to the other be on the rise?
For example, John and Sue are married. The have a child named Nicholas. Sue no longer wants to be married to John, but does not want Nicholas to disappear, so she kills John. Killing John makes her a widow, and not a divorced woman, and therefore, she is no longer "married" to John, yet Nicholas still exist. Call it the "Death Loophole". How would the court system deal with these new laws of existing?
Answer THAT, smart girl!! :-D
Reply
I forgot that your grandma never divorced your grandfather. Are/Were your dad's parents still married or widowed? YOU'RE GONNA DISAPPEAR DAMMIT! I DON"T WANT TO BE ALONE!!!!!
Ok, now that that's out of my system...
In this case, the divorce is not in a legal sense, but the spirit of the divorce is still there, and your grandparents may as well have been divorced. It is my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that there was little, if any, communication between your grandmother and grandfather after she left, so in spirit, they were divorced, and the intention to be apart the rest of their life was there. Your mother then wouldn't exist, so I guess you wouldn't either still. Yea! Company!
If only one wants the divorce...Yes, I suppose one spouse could potentially charge the other with attempted or premeditated "murder" if there is proof that the other spouse, and only the other spouse, wanted the divorce.
Now for John, Sue and Nicholas. While we are stretching the limits of reality, if Sue kills John, Sue would die as well. It doesn't matter if she "gets away with it" or not. If she kills him, wants him dead, hires a hit man - anything that she does that intentionally results in his death, she will die at the same moment he does; a murder-suicide if you will. If this was a result of Sue not wanting to be with John anymore, in lieu of divorce, then Nicholas will also be wiped from existence. If she wants to die with him and be with him eternally, Nickie is spared and I guess goes to live with an aunt or something.
If a spouse dies of an unrelated and unintentional cause (whether it was wished or not) then no one but the actual victim of death dies... If John meets with a work related accident before Sue's Mafia connection finishes the job, Sue gets off on a technicality and gets to raise Nick by herself (or with her boink buddy or whatever).
So take that to the bank and cash it!
Reply
My dad's parents are still married, so he would exist. :P Secondly, why would Sue die if she killed John? Her parents are still alive..so I am not getting what you are saying. In this reality, the only way a person would "disappear" is if the person's parents were to divorce.
Also, this whole thing about marriage being an internal idea is nice, but if it is to be mandated by law, it has to be cut and dry. If not, then it gets too opened to interpretation by the people involved. I believe that the courts would say that the only way a child would disappear is if the married couple involved were to sign the divorce papers. It would not matter if the people were apart (emotionally or physically), or not.
Reply
I created a new rule to deter killing one's spouse. Under the initial rules, Sue probably could keep Nick in existence by killing John, and then, yes, spousal killing would be on the rise.
The idea behind this new rule comes from the vow of " 'til death to us part." If one ends that vow intentionally with death as a means to part, then the . To take the life of your life-partner, you take your own life with it. The vow cannot be broken with intentional harm. Ideally, and initially, it was the sacrament of marriage binds the two lives together, and if one dies, the other will shortly follow. However, since accidental death is something that cannot be controlled, it would not be "fair" for Sue to die because John died in an unrelated accident in the event that there was no foul play intended. Maybe I'm setting a double standard, though. Let me know.
In this case, marriage would not be regulated by law as it was. Marriage is an honest vow made between two people to spend the rest of their lives together, whether or not there are papers signed or even as stated under an appropriate deity. If the two fully intend to stay together, vow as such, they might as well be married. If they break that vow, and decide they can't or won't spend the rest of their lives together, then they might as well be divorced. Because your grandmother fully intended to stay far away from your grandfather, the fall into that might as well category. The courts have nothing to do with the vow, only with legal status, which, in the case of homosexual couples, is not a possibility in most places.
This whole scenario is inconsistent with my personal beliefs anyway because same-sex couples would not be able to have children (of one biological parent or the other). Also, I don't know what would happen if a couple got "married", had a child they didn't want, put him or her up for adoption, and then got "divorced". Any suggestions? :-)
Reply
Maybe in your last scenerio, if that couple was to have a child, then put the child up for adoption, and a gay couple was to adopt, then it is fine. If the gay couple/childless hetero couple was to get "divorced" then the child would return to the age that he/she started from before he/she was adopted..
On a totally unrelated topic,
Did you see the pic I sent you under your xmas list comment board? :D
Reply
If the biological parents get divorced, what would then happen to the child? Since they possibly would not have had the child if they had not gotten married, they child would not exist. However, the child is no longer part of their life, but part of a loving family separate from the biological parents. The adopted partent have no control, or (usually) any knowlege, of the "goings and comings" of the biological parents, but could potentially be unable to prevent the disappearance of who is in all respects except biologically, their child.
I also had a thought concerning polygamy. I don't know if I really want to go into that right now; it gets kind of complicated...
Reply
Leave a comment