Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

Palomar · 2002-07-25 11:56:32

*I've been wondering for a long time how marriages will, on average, pan out on Mars. Since 1 out of 2 marriages in the U.S.A. ends up in divorce, I'm wondering if the challenges and rigors of life on Mars [speaking strictly of the earliest settlers] will strengthen or diminish the bonds of fidelity and matrimony. It would be very uncomfortable, and downright rough, to live in a small settlement with ex-spouses and their new squeeze or new spouse. Most ex's don't get along, many 2nd spouses or newest girl/boyfriend create troubles, etc., etc. I'm thinking the social difficulties and unpleasantries which this scenario would engender would keep intelligent married people ::together::, or at least would encourage Marsian settlers to work harder to keep their relationships afloat and healthy. My husband's ex-wife has never given us any problems...but then again, we're not cooped up in a 2000-foot wide domed hab with her, either.

Any thoughts on this? I think the overall environment, the "tuna can" existence, etc., will keep marriages and/or live-together relationships strong. The consequences of it being otherwise could get pretty danged ugly.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2002-07-25 12:39:50

I think the overall environment, the "tuna can" existence, etc., will keep marriages and/or live-together relationships strong. The consequences of it being otherwise could get pretty danged ugly

I agree with this completely.

IMHO - a significant % of the US divorce rate arises from a "grass is greener" mentality.

"If only I could lose my current loser spouse just think of all the hot babes/studs waiting for me out there."

Watching "Baywatch" doesn't help the situation. . .

Palomar · 2002-07-25 13:13:55

*I just now recalled a news story I heard a few weeks ago, and will relate what it said:

The overwhelming majority of marriages that fail have one thing in common: The couple lived together before marriage, and usually it was the man who decided to opt-out of the marriage. Sociologists studying the issue have come to feel that this is a result of people finding it more easy [initially, of course] to "slide into" marriage after a long live-in relationship, i.e. live-in couples get comfortable with routines, familiarity, obligations, etc., etc. and thus have a greater tendency to loose themselves in a relationship they might see in a different light if there were some actual physical distance involved, and thus it's easier for them to rationalize "the next step" of marriage. There's no moralizing in the sociologists' findings, btw. They encourage people to not live together, to give themselves that "space" and an easier opt-out of a relationship rather than the more tangled and harried matter [especially legal and financial] of opting-out of a marriage.

It might, then, be wise on Mars to encourage [but not force] people to make a marriage committment before a judge or religious figure who has the right to recognize marriages, even if it is "merely" taped and transmitted to Earth.

In any event, it'd be wise to include the findings of these sociologists in preplanning human settlement on Mars, in the hopes of laying the foundations of as stable and healthy an overall human environment as possible.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-07-25 14:34:24

I read that recent CDC report that suggested cohabation before marriage is detrimental to the long term relationship. And I totally agree with it. It's just common sense, to me...

I think the first habitants will have already spurred relationships, if not before leaving Earth, during the actual trip to Mars. I just can't imagine no relationships happening on an 8 month trip to Mars... but maybe that's my romantic side speaking.

I agree that it would be prudent to include these sociological reports, though. But I don't think we should go too far. I mean, I think there would be a lot of pressure on people if they were in a situation where their relationships were completely and utterly defined by some sociological test.

Adrian · 2002-07-25 15:35:19

Huh, I hadn't heard of that report before. Do you have any links on it? Maybe I should rethink my future relationship plans...

Josh Cryer · 2002-07-25 16:01:20

Adrian, here's a link to the CDC site that covers it:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/02fact … _cohab.htm

This is the original Yahoo! report I read about it on:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....vorce_6

Pretty interesting stuff.

Edit: Note that it's mostly statistics... and that living conditions clearly play a role. This CDC report isn't completely clear, it leaves a lot of things out, and I can't say I agree with all of it. I just agree with the sentiment that marrying after cohabatition is going to fail.

But I don't believe in marriage. I think cohabatition can be a good thing if you don't practice rituals that compound the situation in a contractual manner...

Phobos · 2002-07-25 17:37:41

The overwhelming majority of marriages that fail have one thing in common: The couple lived together before marriage, and usually it was the man who decided to opt-out of the marriage.

That happened to me and is probably why I don't believe in formal marriages. I think it's better just to live with someone until you get sick of them or they get sick of you then, as Bill White said, go to greener pastures. The only possibly redeeming feature of marriage that I can think of is that it might be beneficial to children as it gives them extra support, but I'm not convinced of that even though one should support one's children both financially and emotionally regardless of whether the parents live together or not. People just aren't monogamous and that's not a bad thing.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-07-25 19:24:12

Watch, clark will find a way to say something really, really authoritarian.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-07-25 19:27:25

People just aren't monogamous

Some people might say doing the hard right rather than the easy wrong is a good thing.

Josh Cryer · 2002-07-25 20:07:35

Well, I think this report is somewhat biased, anyway. Considering that it's looking into the success of marriage, and not the health of those involved in the marriages as a whole.

I read that one of the people who worked on this said on CNN that if the study took into consideration older data, you'd find that the average of those who had premarital cohabitation had longer lasting relationships. And that this study uses more recent data steming from a higher number of people who cohabited before marrying. Which is clearly unreasonable when you have a study like this, the conclusions are arguably flawed. Then again, this is a study about marriage, not actual, relevant things, like health.

I think people are very well capable of being monogamous if their conditions are right. And I think monogamy can be much more enjoyable than changing partners constantly. But I agree that it's not necessary.

Palomar · 2002-07-26 08:20:47

*Aw, c'mon naysayers here! Marriage is the ultimate boot camp, the toughest job you'll ever love!

After reading the posts in this thread, I recall a TV documentary I saw about a South American Indian tribe who have no idea of marriage or "couple-ship." They exchange partners at will, and the entire community cares for the children and infants. One male member of the tribe was given reprimands for insisting a certain female "was his", and wanted her all to himself. They were very happy, content, and productive in their tribal unit. Of course, unless they're bringing in outsiders every once in a while, inbreeding will start to be a problem.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-07-26 18:36:55

I think people are very well capable of being monogamous if their conditions are right. And I think monogamy can be much more enjoyable than changing partners constantly. But I agree that it's not necessary.

True, some people seem built for long lasting monogamous relationships, but I question the need for having such a union officially and legally sanctified. Maybe I'm just pissed off and irrational because I don't think that it's right that married people with no kids actually pay less in taxes then single people with no kids. 'sup with that?

After reading the posts in this thread, I recall a TV documentary I saw about a South American Indian tribe who have no idea of marriage or "couple-ship." They exchange partners at will, and the entire community cares for the children and infants. One male member of the tribe was given reprimands for insisting a certain female "was his", and wanted her all to himself. They were very happy, content, and productive in their tribal unit. Of course, unless they're bringing in outsiders every once in a while, inbreeding will start to be a problem.

Damn, if there's only a handful of people living in a colony on Mars they're going to have some real breeding problems whether they exchange partners or not. I remember reading somewhere what the ideal starting number of colonists would be to prevent such inbreeding but I've forgotten what it was. It was a very small number though, something like 50 couples.

Bill White · 2002-07-27 00:00:53

I fear the intended irony of my original comments was not sufficiently conveyed.

I think many people leave a steady relationship under the illusion that they deserve someone younger / more attractive / more understanding, etc. . . Usually this is related to an over-estimation of one's own appeal to the opposite sex. "Why is a hot guy/gal like me stuck with such a loser?"

Usually, such a question is best answered: "Yeah, right!"

Starting over with a "better" someone else is the easier course than honestly looking in the mirror. And most people who get divorced do not want to be single again - rather they feel they "deserve" a better spouse.

Divorce rates are high, but how many divorced people thereafter remain outside quasi-permanent relationships? Not many. IMHO, most people split up hoping to "get it right" the next time. Again IMHO "getting it right" comes more from knowing yourself than from finding Mr. or Ms. Perfect Mate.

Co-habitation - just "trying it out" - can easily result in differing perspectives on just how much commitment has been made. If the parties do not share a mutual understanding - more of less - of the level of commitment that will be mutually expected, how can any such relationship truly be fair, or equal?

Mars settlers will not have the luxury of allowing high school like melodramas of X "breaking up" with Y - unresolved sexual tensions, guilt, recrimination and the ordinary hostility that accompanies a casual forming and dissolution of relationships.

It will get people killed, if only through carelessness caused by depression.

One of my biggest annoyances with KSR's Mars trilogy is that the characters sexual behavior was more appropriate to a television sit-com - or high school - than a serious Mars settlement. I kept wanting to say - "Oh just grow up, will you!"

IMHO - the first * permanent * settlers should be couples with solid marriages established before going to Mars. Both spouses must pass batteries of psychological tests - not only to assure they are personally grounded but to assure that their marriage is on solid ground as well.

Its like the drug thing - the right settlers will not be swapping - and no formal rules will be necessary.

Also, its not a moral thing - at least with me - I see it as being pure practicality. Besides, what is the point of sending any * permanent * settlers unless they will have children - without children they are not really settlers, merely tourists.

As for the numbers for an initial settlement, I recall a professor at Florida State wrote a paper saying 150 people really is the lowest practical number for a multi-generational permanent settlement.

Personally, I disbelieve the "fire and brimstone" teachings of most religious moralizers, but as I get older and older, old fashioned morality makes increasingly good common sense even if we omit all of the supernatural baggage.

Palomar · 2002-07-27 09:27:37

Bill: Mars settlers will not have the luxury of allowing high school like melodramas of X "breaking up" with Y - unresolved sexual tensions, guilt, recrimination and the ordinary hostility that accompanies a casual forming and dissolution of relationships...One of my biggest annoyances with KSR's Mars trilogy is that the characters sexual behavior was more appropriate to a television sit-com - or high school - than a serious Mars settlement. I kept wanting to say - "Oh just grow up, will you!"

*Reminds me of Arthur C. Clarke's otherwise brilliant novel _Rendezvous with Rama_. It was published in 1973, when I was a wee lass, but during a time when "alternative lifestyles" were truly coming to the forefront of U.S. consciousness and was a huge debate. I remember my parents haranguing on and on about "people shacking up together!" Anyway, the commander of the Earth spaceship which meets and explores Rama is a middle-aged man who has 2 wives and families, one on Earth and one on Mars, though he seldom sees either of them and admits he's "a horrible voice correspondent" [transmitted messages]. He gets lonely and occasionally has a fling with a female shipmate. Apparently Clarke was attempting to help the "sexual revolution" along, but the premise of this character's life is ridiculous. Why have 2 spouses on 2 different planets, with children no less, whom you hardly ever see because you're out amongst the gas giants most of the time...? It's not a matter of morals, it's a matter of common sense. I'm not trying to be overly critical of Clarke, because I think he was sincerely trying to "be with the times" and explore those alternatives...but still, at least Han Solo was smart enough to be, well...solo!

Bill: IMHO - the first * permanent * settlers should be couples with solid marriages established before going to Mars. Both spouses must pass batteries of psychological tests - not only to assure they are personally grounded but to assure that their marriage is on solid ground as well.

*Considering that the chances are highly unlikely members of that South American tribe will be going, I'll have to give you a 100% thumbs up on this.

Bill: Also, its not a moral thing - at least with me - I see it as being pure practicality.

*Agreed. There's going to be enough challenges and dangers on Mars without it becoming some kind of soap opera.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-29 09:24:06

What is marriage?

A contract with another individual.

What is divorce?

The dissolution of the contract with another individual.

What role does the State, Society, or anyone else have in deciding who I live with, or who I don't live with?

Other than REGULATING the manner in which we make the contract, or the manner in which we disolve the contract, what role can their be for society?

To all you who think I am willing to sacrifice personal liberty, wake up.

The most disgusting laws in exsistence are the ones that dictate in what manner we may live with another individual. The consentual contract made between individuals (even polygymy) is between those individuals- that's it.

Society can only become involved when and if one of the individuals violates the contract- ie, adultery, etc.

Will there be falanders on mars- sure, it'll be like a college dorms in many respects (not all). By and large, monogomy is the way things go. However, who knows with mars- the environment is going to be much different, the population is going to be much different.

Who knows what happens when an entire population is on birth control, has no fear of STD's, and see's no economic advantage of having a partner. Space undermines the whole sociological neccessity of marriage- unless there is reproduction- yet even the role of marriage is becoming antiquated in terms of usefullness for reproduction.

Better questions to answer: Why do people marry on Earth? What reasons carry over to Martian living? What reasons don't? Can the same benefits of marriage be reached, or can components of marriage be reached, without actual marriage?

Is it so hard to imagine situations where people are little more than genetic material, to contribute to future offspring- but rearing is left to other "parents"? Sperm banks and ovary banks are the reality if you think "impossible". Other than role-modeling, what do parents provide that someone else cannot?

Palomar · 2002-07-29 22:35:12

The most disgusting laws in exsistence are the ones that dictate in what manner we may live with another individual. The consentual contract made between individuals (even polygymy) is between those individuals- that's it.

*I'm wondering what your answer would be to a panel composed of scientists, ethicists, religious leaders, and politicians screening candidates for the first manned Mars mission [you're a candidate] should they ask you, "If a person cannot, or will not, make a public committment to a person they claim to love and care for, why should we believe/trust that s/he can commit to the integrity of the mission, as well as to mutual respect and welfare toward fellow crewmates?"

I'm ::not:: suggesting that relationships must have public committment, btw, so everyone please rest assured; I'm not moralizing here. However, I wouldn't be surprised if a question of this sort were asked by such a panel screening candidates.

Please just answer the question, Clark; please don't "answer" with a bombardment of your own counter-questions, which isn't, after all, an answer.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-30 07:19:30

"If a person cannot, or will not, make a public committment to a person they claim to love and care for, why should we believe/trust that s/he can commit to the integrity of the mission, as well as to mutual respect and welfare toward fellow crewmates?"

I reject the question on the grounds that it is arbitrary and meaningless. This idea of "public committment" does not apply to the situation at hand and is misleading. The question assumes that the best way to evaluate the level of comittment we may expect from an individual can be guaged by their willingness to enter into marriage.

Marriage means different things to different people, it's value as a means to screen potential canadities for things like trust is highly questionable and the same results can be obtained from other avenues or evaluations.

The question also assumes that if you are unwilling to be married, then you obviosly cannot make a commitment... which is shown to be false by the commitment that many religious figures make- all sans marriage.

If I am married, then the question should be what behavio in marriage demonstrates the level of commitment neccessary for a mars mission.

If I am not married, then the question should be what behavior do I demonstrate that shows the level of commitment neccessary for a mars question.

Your question Cindy automaticaly penalizes those who do not subscribe to a certain world view.

Palomar · 2002-07-30 07:56:43

Clark: I reject the question on the grounds that it is arbitrary and meaningless...Your question Cindy automaticaly penalizes those who do not subscribe to a certain world view.

*As would any other question said panel would ask, in your opinion, I'm sure. And you're pro-psychological screening of potential candidates before they go to Mars, as you've indicated elsewhere? Interesting, considering said psychological testing is based on certain world views. Again, you contradict yourself.

It was a hypothetical scenario: A panel of persons whose job it is to screen potential candidates for a mission to Mars may very well ask such a question. Carl Sagan's lead character in "Contact" was asked whether she believed in God or not, by such a panel whose decision it was to make who would undertake the mission relative to the story line [I've seen the movie; I've not read the book].

You reject the question as "meaningless and arbitrary" because it doesn't jibe with your own world view.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-30 08:43:40

You reject the question as "meaningless and arbitrary" because it doesn't jibe with your own world view.

Wrong. I reject the question as stated becuase it holds a certain assumption inherent in the question. I have no problem using "marriage" as a screening criteria, however, the question YOU asked was one where "trust" can only be demonstrated through marriage- it assumes that only those willing to get married are trustful, or at the very least, more trustful then those who choose not to be married which is an apparent fallacy.

Your question:

"If a person cannot, or will not, make a public committment to a person they claim to love and care for, why should we believe/trust that s/he can commit to the integrity of the
mission, as well as to mutual respect and welfare toward fellow crewmates?"

You are asking me why I should be trusted if I am not willing or able to get married. This implies only those who get married, or are able to, have the commitment neccessary for a Mars Mission. You are assuming certain values and then placing those values onto me- it is wrong.

*As would any other question said panel would ask, in your opinion, I'm sure.

No, I listed how the question could be put as to reduce the bias and assumption in the question. If I am married, then ask what behavior in the marriage demonstrates that I have the commitment (your question assumes that the commitment is demonstrated just by being married, which is unsubstantiated) neccessary for a mars mission.

If I am not married, what behavior do I exhibt that demonstrates I have commitment neccessary for a Mars Mission.

In all likelyhood married individuals will have an easier time of demonstrating that they have the commitment since they have abundant opportunities by being in a commited relationship, however, that in and of itself should not preclude or be used as a bais against those who are not married.

And you're pro-psychological screening of potential candidates before they go to Mars, as you've indicated elsewhere?

I'm all for psych screening- and your question is biased, and shouldn't be used. I can reject a question and still support the system of screening. Do you think you are qualified to determine which questions are legitimate and which ones are not, while also taking into account your own personal bias? It normally takes teams of psychologists to do this, with several reviews to pull out exactly the kind of things I am pointing out in your question.

Interesting, considering said psychological testing is based on certain world views.
Again, you contradict yourself.

No, I don't. There never is going to be a completely unbiased psychological review, however, that dosen't mean we have to settle for half-way either.

Your question makes marriage a "qualifier" whereby you screen people without actually evaluating them- it is a strategy to reduce information overload (common human behavior stemming from our minds predisposition to work as little as possible). You are equating the act of being married to having the commitment for a Mars mission which is unfounded and unsubstaniated. You are aslo equating the act of not being married as not having the commitment for a Mars mission, also equally unfounded.

It would be like me asking, ""If a person cannot, or will not, TAKE THE TRASH OUT FOR a person they claim to love and care for, why should we believe/trust that s/he can commit to the integrity of the mission, as well as to mutual respect and welfare toward fellow crewmates?"

Would you feel THAT is a legitimate question? It is no different and just as arbitrary.

Palomar · 2002-07-30 09:44:11

It would be like me asking, ""If a person cannot, or will not, TAKE THE TRASH OUT FOR a person they claim to love and care for, why should we believe/trust that s/he can commit to the integrity of the mission, as well as to mutual respect and welfare toward fellow crewmates?"
Would you feel THAT is a legitimate question? It is no different and just as arbitrary.

*If you can't see the difference between requesting a mere chore be done for someone versus making a public committment, in the context of this discussion, then I'm not going to spell it out for you.

I'm beginning to be fairly certain that you're not interested in genuine discussion, but rather are stuck in Devil's Advocate Mode and will always deliberately take an opposing viewpoint just for the heck of it.

Whatever.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-30 10:01:24

I answered the question, under the conditions you specified (without a question) in return. What form of genuine discussion is there if all i am doing is giving you nothing more than statements to your questions?

I can understand the issue of "public commitment", however, you avoid the point I am conveying, which is finding fault with the way in which you direct the question.

If the issue is "public commitment" then direct the question accordingly. Instead, you are dressing up the real question by relating it to the act of marriage.

I ask YOU now, is marriage the only means with which to demonstrate the commitment neccessary for a Mars mission.

If you say yes, then this "discussion" is worthless.

If you say no, then you have to see my point.

You are trying to equate the act of marriage as a final litmus test on a persons ability to make a commitment. I am saying that the act of marriage, in and of itself, is a poor means to judge whether or not someone truly has the commitment neccessary for a mars mission.

Can marriage be a means to guage commitment level, yes. Can other behavior be used to guage commitment as well as marriage, yes. As such, wouldn't a more generalized question regaridng what you have done to demonstrate yor resolve be a better question than one that is specifcally biased towards a certain way of looking at the world?

As to playing devils advocate, it is my personal opinon and nothing more, but I believe that you can never truly understand an issue unless you understand all sides of the issue. But in regards to the last two posts and this one, I am telling you what I think.

So my personal answer is that your question is biased and unfair. It automaticaly places me on the defensive whereby i must now prove that i am equal to those who get married in terms of level of commitment.

People can be commited to ideals. People can be commited to ways of doing things. People can be commited to their work. People can be commited to helping others. People can be commited to many things, marriage just being but one. People can also be commited and not be married, but your question as stated asssumes this to be false.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-07-31 11:33:32

Clark;

As I suspected, you're authoritarian here too. It just hasn't come out yet. But the logical implications of your worldview are pretty clear already.

Other than REGULATING the manner in which we make the contract, or the manner in which we disolve the contract, what role can their be for society?

But "regulating" interstate commerce means deciding how much grain a farmer can grow on his own land for his own livestock, right? If you say the government can regulate "the manner in which we make the contract", you've handed them the power to decide which color shirt you'll wear. After all, it might have an effect how well you attract a mate.

But more to the point, suppose someone says that, for the good of society, of course, the state should decide who will have children. All couplings other than state-mandated ones must use contraceptives. It isn't really different from what we have already. Here on Earth we don't let cousins marry, and on Mars you've already said you'll need a licence to breed. All this is, is saying you can't procreate with your wife, but you can with the lady down the hall, since you'll make a better genetic match. Some libertarian types might want to let match-making go on willy-nilly, but then we'd have to let cousins marry.

Of course, you assume that authoritarianism in relationships means traditionalist, or, to be more exact, Christian authoritarianism, which is why you're against it. But make men and women exercise naked together and throw in a few indecipherable formulas, and who knows?

To all you who think I am willing to sacrifice personal liberty, wake up.

I certainly never thought that. To sacrifice something, you have to attach some sort of value to it to begin with.

clark · 2002-07-31 12:41:56

Other than REGULATING the manner in which we make the contract, or the manner in which we disolve the contract, what role can their be for society?
But "regulating" interstate commerce means deciding how much grain a farmer can grow on his own land for his own livestock, right?

Regulating means providing rules for the exercise of our liberty. We regulate free speech. We regulate voting. We regulate saftey standards. We regulate where we walk our pets. We regulate what food we eat. We regulate what water we drink. We regulate what cars we can drive. We regulate who can fly. We regulate where you can travel. We regulate what you can take when you travel. We regulate the materials used to build your house. We regulate the manner in which your house is built. We regulate when and how you may defend yourself from bodily harm. We regulate when you can have sex. We regulate how you treat your children. We regulate what jobs you can have. We regulate what you put in your body.

All of this regulation and more occurs now, today, in the US oh A.

As for regulating how much livestock and grain- you imply that I support or somehow endorse this statement. i do not. It is entirely you. Please site where I made this asserton (you asked me "right?" in confirmation). I cannot confirm your assertions, nor do I care to.

If you say the government can regulate "the manner in which we make the contract", you've handed them the power to decide which color shirt you'll wear.

I see, so you are claiming that the governemnt will start telling us what shirts to wear?! Now who is crazy. LOL.

But more to the point, suppose someone says that, for the good of society, of course, the state should decide who will have children.

But society does this now. Maybe not as overtly as you keep screaming about. The State has the authority to take children away from people shoe are deemed unfit to raise them. That in effect is the same thing. Really, have you thought about any of this at all?

All this is, is saying you can't procreate with your wife, but you can with the lady down the hall, since you'll make a better genetic match.

Feel free ot continue to twist the discussion out of context, I don't care. I never once posted that what you are ranting about is what should happen. You're having an artgument with yourself AJ. Let me know when you are done.

To sacrifice something, you have to attach some sort of value to it to begin with.

Cute.

Palomar · 2002-07-31 13:34:38

We regulate when you can have sex.

Or are you referring to legal age of consent, Clark? I'm thinking that must be what you're referring to, because my husband and I have never had to ask anyone's permission or follow regulations for when we want to "make whoopie."

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-31 13:41:01

Legal age of consent.
There are laws in some states related to the manner in which you have sex.
There are laws relating to sex between two members of the same sex.
There are REGULATIONS on where you may or may not have sex.

I'm thinking that must be what you're referring to, because my husband and I have never had to ask anyone's permission or follow regulations for when we want to "make whoopie."

Everytime you have sex in privacy, you obey regulations pertaining to sex.

Can you have sex in the middle of the street at 10AM in downtown traffic? No. It is a regulation.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-07-25 11:56:32

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#2 2002-07-25 12:39:50

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#3 2002-07-25 13:13:55

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#4 2002-07-25 14:34:24

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#5 2002-07-25 15:35:19

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#6 2002-07-25 16:01:20

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#7 2002-07-25 17:37:41

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#8 2002-07-25 19:24:12

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#9 2002-07-25 19:27:25

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#10 2002-07-25 20:07:35

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#11 2002-07-26 08:20:47

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#12 2002-07-26 18:36:55

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#13 2002-07-27 00:00:53

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#14 2002-07-27 09:27:37

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#15 2002-07-29 09:24:06

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#16 2002-07-29 22:35:12

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#17 2002-07-30 07:19:30

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#18 2002-07-30 07:56:43

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#19 2002-07-30 08:43:40

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#20 2002-07-30 09:44:11

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#21 2002-07-30 10:01:24

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#22 2002-07-31 11:33:32

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#23 2002-07-31 12:41:56

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#24 2002-07-31 13:34:38

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#25 2002-07-31 13:41:01

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

Board footer