War against Women

[MyReality]

So lately the media and internet have been overwhelmed with recent legislations that are sadly passing into law that can be said to go against womens rights. Especially in Arizona where Jan Brewer is (CRAZY!) extreme on determining the sexual practices of women in the state. I will post laws passing only from the beginning of 2012 otherwise their would be to much to talk about. Mainly from Arizona.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/12/j ... M6Y.reddit

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Legislation Permitting Employers to Interrogate Female Employees About Contraception Use

Arizona Bans Funding to Planned Parenthood
PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood's access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Arizona already bars use of public money for abortions except to save the life of the mother. But anti-abortion legislators and other supporters of the bill say the broader prohibition is needed to ensure no public money indirectly supports abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.
The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session.
PHOENIX (AP) – Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood's access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.


The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/1 ... 15715.html

Arizona Abortion Bill: Legislators Pass Three Bills, Including One That Redefines When Life Begins


Arizona lawmakers gave final passage to three anti-abortion bills Tuesday afternoon, including one that declares pregnancies in the state begin two weeks before conception.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill to prohibit abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy; a bill to protect doctors from being sued if they withhold health information about a pregnancy that could cause a woman to seek an abortion; and a bill to mandate that how school curriculums address the topic of unwanted pregnancies.

The other two bills passed by the House include the state's "wrongful birth, wrongful life" bill that prohibits lawsuits against doctors who do not provide information about a fetus' health if that information could lead to an abortion. In addition, parents cannot sue on the child's behalf after birth.

The third bill requires that schools teach students that adoption and birth are the most acceptable outcomes for an unwanted pregnancy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... 44557.html

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

Arizona is a right to work state, which makes it all the scarier.

Jan Brewers reasoning behind these bands are on religious grounds, which can be read in the sites above.

In Virginia:


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/vi ... wanted=all

Gov. Bob McDonnell demanded the revisions last week, and their acceptance on Tuesday all but assured the state’s adoption of the ultrasound requirement. The original bill set off protests from women’s groups and others. Some critics called it “state rape,� and the plan was mocked on television comedy shows.

In Alabama, the sponsor of a bill to strengthen an existing ultrasound requirement said on Monday that he would seek a revision softening the bill. The existing bill mandates that the screen must face the pregnant woman and requires use of the scanning method that provides the clearest image — which would mean vaginal ultrasounds in most cases.

As a result, the bills under active consideration in several states, including Pennsylvania and Mississippi, require detailed fetal images that would in practice require many patients to have vaginal ultrasounds.

Such a requirement has been in effect since early this month in Texas with little of the outcry seen in Virginia. Similar laws adopted in Oklahoma and North Carolina are now blocked by federal court order until their constitutionality is determined.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/03 ... tock-bill/

The bill as first proposed outlawed all abortions after 20 weeks under all circumstances. After negotiations with the Senate, the House passed a revised HB 954 that makes an exemption for “medically futile� pregnancies or those in which the woman’s life or health is threatened.

If this makes its seem like Rep. England and the rest of the representatives looked beyond their cows and pigs and recognized women as capable, full-thinking human beings, think again: HB 954 excludes a woman’s “emotional or mental condition,� which means women suffering from mental illness would be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. It also ignores pregnant women who are suicidal and driven to inflict harm on themselves because of their unwanted pregnancy.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04 ... -murdered/

House Bill 3517 [PDF], the so-called “embryo bill,� allows prosecutors to levy charges of assault or murder if an embryo is harmed or killed. The bill excludes consensual “medical or surgical procedures,� although it removes existing language that would specifically exempt “abortion.� Given Tennessee’s long history of fetal rights legislation, the bill raises some speculation as to whether the “embryo bill� is a step toward declaring “fetal personhood.�

The “embryo bill� expands on two previous laws. The first allowed a murder or assault charge for harm to a “viable� fetus, defined as one 32 weeks or older, which has been the precedent in Tennessee since 1989. The second, passed in 2011, removed the word “viable� to cover a fetus at any age.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legis ... challenge/

The Texas law is more strict: It requires women to have a sonogram at least 24 hours ahead of an abortion, and the doctor to play the heartbeat aloud, describe the fetus, and show the woman the image, unless she chooses not to view it. Although the Texas law doesn’t specify what kind of ultrasound — belly or transvaginal — abortion providers say they almost always must use the transvaginal probe to pick up the heartbeat and describe the fetus at the early stage of pregnancy when most women seek abortions.

http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/04/24/ ... t-pay.html

SC health plan would not pay for abortions involving rape, incest under new proposal

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04 ... in-danger/

On the final day to review general bills, the Mississippi Senate Public Health Committee passed HB 1390, which requires doctors performing abortions to be board-certified OB-GYNs with hospital admitting privileges. Although it sounds reasonable, HB 1390 is another affront to women’s reproductive rights when you factor in the already meager resources available to the women of Mississippi.

ITS ONLY BEEN 5 MONTHS! What the hell is going on? I know that the forums have been saturated lately with abortion threads but im going to make this a new one with all the above material for the use of Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers. I think every single one of these is going wayyyyyyy to far. Who here can argue the justification to keep this trend going? How far do you think it will go before we start going back even further in time when it comes to womens rights?

[Slopeshoulder]

OK, opinions noted. Don't have it then.

But my experience and that of everyone I know gives the lie to your fear-mongering anti-sex sources.

[micatala]

stuff about sex being so dangerous. I mean, really. At least, as I said, it's subject to interpretation or not what I said.

Sex IS dangerous. Very much so. At least, sex with multiple partners is. According to the Guttmacher institute, 21%of sexually active women is at direct risk of an STD, and 23% are at indirect risk...that is, THEY may not have more than one partner, but their partner has had, and may continue to have, more than one partner. That's HALF the female population of the USA.

Now what would YOU call an activity that gave you a 50/50 chance of getting a rather nasty, perhaps drug resistant, disease that can cause infertility, brain damage, damage to any children you may eventually have...and even death?

I mean, hello?



Navy Seals in combat have a better chance of making it out unscathed.

Don't know about you, but, er....that's DANGEROUS.

As a general comment, I would agree sex has risks.

However, notwithstanding the validity of the numbers from the Guttmacher institute, your number-crunching here is highly flawed.


Let's for the time being take the 21% and 23% at face value.

However, note that these are proportions, not probabilities. What is left out is what exactly "at risk" means. One thing it almost surely does NOT mean is that 100% of each of these two groups gets an STD. What it probably means is that the probabilities, call them P1 and P2, of contracting an STD for each group is somewhat higher than the population overall. But how much higher is a very, very important figure.

If P1 and P2 were both 100%, then close to half the women in the country would have STD's. Hmmm. Not quite buying that implication.

Thus, the 50/50 chance you are giving us here is totally off the wall.

For example, let's say P1 is 10% and P2 is 5% on an annual basis. In other words, if you are in the 'direct' group, you have a 10% chance of getting an STD in a year. (If you think it is higher than that, please provide some reliable data to back that up). Assume further that no one not in these two groups gets on STD. Then the proportion of all women getting an STD in a year would be:

(.21)(.10)+(.23)(.05) = .021+.0115=.0325.

In other words, a randomly selected women would have a 3.25% chance of getting and STD in a year. My bet is this back of the envelope estimate is way high, but feel free to correct me. Somehow, I don't think of this as Navy Seal territory.



And there are other problems. I would agree the more sex you have with the more different people, the higher your probability of getting an STD. But again, it depends on how often, how many different partners, and of course, the habits of those partners. IF they are all having sex only with you, then you are relatively safe.


HOwever, I will grant that, at least if their numbers are accurate, there are 15 million new cases of STD's per year. From what I have found, there are roughly 250 million adults in the U.S. Now we can quibble about how many of the teens are having sex, etc., and how many of the old people are not, but just as a back of the envelope calculation, 15 out of 250 is 6%. That's higher than my 3.25%, but my estimate was assuming no one not in the 46% percent got an STD and more importantly, is counting people and not cases. I think it is reasonable to think that the 15 million cases do not represent 15 million different people. Some people who get one disease get more than one, or get the same one multiple times in a year.



At any rate, as far as being counter-factual, at least this portion of what you are saying is highly counter-factual.

[JoeyKnothead]

Let's not forget that while one ain't having sex 'cause they don't want an STD, they ain't having sex.

That, and some STDs are rather benign, to just embarrassing.

[dianaiad]

OK, opinions noted. Don't have it then.

But my experience and that of everyone I know gives the lie to your fear-mongering anti-sex sources.

Let's see...anecdotal evidence vs. science? Amazing how anecdotal evidence becomes 'good' when it supports one's own opinions, isn't it?

Sex with multiple partners is dangerous. Your risk of getting an STD increases darned near exponentially with every new partner you get....what's that old saw about you not just having sex with this person, but also with everybody that person has had sex with? In terms of STD's, that is, unfortunately, more true than not.

So the emphasis for STD's, QUITE RIGHTLY, is on prevention. They advocate condoms, and being careful about choosing those with whom one has sex. It has nothing to do with morality...after all, lesbians with multiple partners are still at the lowest risk for STD's than any other group save the celibate, and they do come close to that.

It's about responsibility, not morality.

Oh, and a bit of hypocrisy, too.

[Slopeshoulder]

OK, opinions noted. Don't have it then.

But my experience and that of everyone I know gives the lie to your fear-mongering anti-sex sources.

Let's see...anecdotal evidence vs. science? Amazing how anecdotal evidence becomes 'good' when it supports one's own opinions, isn't it?

Sex with multiple partners is dangerous. Your risk of getting an STD increases darned near exponentially with every new partner you get....what's that old saw about you not just having sex with this person, but also with everybody that person has had sex with? In terms of STD's, that is, unfortunately, more true than not.

So the emphasis for STD's, QUITE RIGHTLY, is on prevention. They advocate condoms, and being careful about choosing those with whom one has sex. It has nothing to do with morality...after all, lesbians with multiple partners are still at the lowest risk for STD's than any other group save the celibate, and they do come close to that.

It's about responsibility, not morality.

Oh, and a bit of hypocrisy, too.

I'm all for responsibility and morality.
What were we arguing about again?
Do you just want everyone to be celibate or to die with only one partner? Is that the agenda?

Also, check what Micatela said about your questionable interpretation of your source.
And what Joey said about how most STD's aren't deadly. Not even HIV much of the time (although it's still a horror)
If I go sleighriding, I may get a cold. Big whoop.

and yes, some science is garbage and anecdotes and experience are better as a practical matter.

[dianaiad]

OK, opinions noted. Don't have it then.

But my experience and that of everyone I know gives the lie to your fear-mongering anti-sex sources.

Let's see...anecdotal evidence vs. science? Amazing how anecdotal evidence becomes 'good' when it supports one's own opinions, isn't it?

Sex with multiple partners is dangerous. Your risk of getting an STD increases darned near exponentially with every new partner you get....what's that old saw about you not just having sex with this person, but also with everybody that person has had sex with? In terms of STD's, that is, unfortunately, more true than not.

So the emphasis for STD's, QUITE RIGHTLY, is on prevention. They advocate condoms, and being careful about choosing those with whom one has sex. It has nothing to do with morality...after all, lesbians with multiple partners are still at the lowest risk for STD's than any other group save the celibate, and they do come close to that.

It's about responsibility, not morality.

Oh, and a bit of hypocrisy, too.

I'm all for responsibility and morality.
What were we arguing about again?
Do you just want everyone to be celibate or to die with only one partner? Is that the agenda?

Well, I would, yes, because I honestly believe that everybody would be healthier and happier that way, not to mention that sex would be elevated to that something very special that is to be shared by permanent partners.

However, I think that because of my own religious beliefs. I don't expect everybody to agree with me, nor do I insist that those who don't agree with me behave as if they do. It's not my business how many people have sex with each other, or how they do it.

So my 'agenda' is pretty simple: be as careful about preventing pregnancy as you are about preventing STD's, and take such prevention SERIOUSLY. Don't wave the whole pregnancy risk off as something lesser, something that you can fix with a simple medical procedure. My 'agenda' is to get women (and yeah, men too, since they ARE the ones who need to wear the condoms) to understand, as deeply and viscerally as they understand that AIDS is life or death, and the new drug resistant strain of Gonorrhea may well be life or death...that SO IS PREGNANCY--except that with pregnancy the life and death involved is that of a complete innocent human who did did absolutely nothing to deserve, earn, or choose the act that's about to get him or her killed.

Also, check what Micatela said about your questionable interpretation of your source.
And what Joey said about how most STD's aren't deadly. Not even HIV much of the time (although it's still a horror)
If I go sleighriding, I may get a cold. Big whoop.

Y'know, that statement...the whole thing...is so jaw-droppingly astounding that I don't really have anything to say. It's a difference in world view that...I don't think we speak the same language.

BTW--the cost of HIV medications averages between fifteen and twenty-five THOUSAND dollars a year--not including doctor's visits and medications taken to counteract the side effects of the HIV medications--and that assumes that those medications actually work, with the patient living a full, and relatively healthy, life.

Big whoop? Big, all right. As it happens, if you make less than $60,000 a year, it will cost you $230,000 to raise a child from birth to 18...including saving for college at a public university.

If you have HIV, and add up the costs of doctor visits and HIV medication (leaving out the medication to treat side effects and any opportunistic infections that can show up), you will be spending close to $327,000 for the same 18 years.

NO matter how you look at this, it's, er, big. Most people weight the risks of an activity by the seriousness of the consequences if things go sideways, and adjust accordingly. You go outside in the winter and come back in with a cold? (and going out in the winter doesn't cause colds, but you knew that, right?) So what? You sniffle for a few days, drink a lot of fluids, watch a lot of TV, and you are right back in the mix.

Getting HIV or pregnant? That's permanent....if not for you, it certainly is for the human you kill in order to avoid dealing with his/her existence. HIV is permanent.

So are many more STD's, in terms of the effects they have on your body.

Tell me: if you knew, when you got on an airplane, that you had a one in ten chance of falling out of the sky and crashing, would you get on it? IF so, you are far more 'dare devil' than most people...............

Yet the thought of STD's and/or pregnancy is 'big deal.'

(shaking head)....nope, I don't think we speak the same language.

and yes, some science is garbage and anecdotes and experience are better as a practical matter.

Now I know we don't speak the same language.

[Slopeshoulder]

Well, I would, yes, because I honestly believe that everybody would be healthier and happier that way, not to mention that sex would be elevated to that something very special that is to be shared by permanent partners.

However, I think that because of my own religious beliefs. I don't expect everybody to agree with me, nor do I insist that those who don't agree with me behave as if they do. It's not my business how many people have sex with each other, or how they do it.

Good of you to say. But it appears you care about it rather a lot based on yur actions here. Your frequent anti-sex advocacy is directed specifically to infuence other people.

So my 'agenda' is pretty simple: be as careful about preventing pregnancy as you are about preventing STD's, and take such prevention SERIOUSLY. Don't wave the whole pregnancy risk off as something lesser, something that you can fix with a simple medical procedure. My 'agenda' is to get women (and yeah, men too, since they ARE the ones who need to wear the condoms) to understand, as deeply and viscerally as they understand that AIDS is life or death, and the new drug resistant strain of Gonorrhea may well be life or death...that SO IS PREGNANCY--except that with pregnancy the life and death involved is that of a complete innocent human who did did absolutely nothing to deserve, earn, or choose the act that's about to get him or her killed.

I agree with most of that. I think I've been pretty clear. Did you think otherwise? I don't understand why you came crashing onto my posts if what I said was:
- enjoy sex folks
- be responsible, smart, and moral
I can only presume, if we agree on the latter, that you object to the former and haven't really owned that yet.

Also, check what Micatela said about your questionable interpretation of your source.
And what Joey said about how most STD's aren't deadly. Not even HIV much of the time (although it's still a horror)
If I go sleighriding, I may get a cold. Big whoop.

Y'know, that statement...the whole thing...is so jaw-droppingly astounding that I don't really have anything to say.

Yes you do, see below...

BTW, re: the whole thing, you don't seem to have addressed what Joey or Micatela said.

It's a difference in world view that...I don't think we speak the same language.

?

BTW--the cost of HIV medications averages between fifteen and twenty-five THOUSAND dollars a year--not including doctor's visits and medications taken to counteract the side effects of the HIV medications--and that assumes that those medications actually work, with the patient living a full, and relatively healthy, life.

Big whoop? Big, all right. As it happens, if you make less than $60,000 a year, it will cost you $230,000 to raise a child from birth to 18...including saving for college at a public university.

If you have HIV, and add up the costs of doctor visits and HIV medication (leaving out the medication to treat side effects and any opportunistic infections that can show up), you will be spending close to $327,000 for the same 18 years.

NO matter how you look at this, it's, er, big. Most people weight the risks of an activity by the seriousness of the consequences if things go sideways, and adjust accordingly. You go outside in the winter and come back in with a cold? (and going out in the winter doesn't cause colds, but you knew that, right?) So what? You sniffle for a few days, drink a lot of fluids, watch a lot of TV, and you are right back in the mix.

Getting HIV or pregnant? That's permanent....if not for you, it certainly is for the human you kill in order to avoid dealing with his/her existence. HIV is permanent.

So are many more STD's, in terms of the effects they have on your body.

Tell me: if you knew, when you got on an airplane, that you had a one in ten chance of falling out of the sky and crashing, would you get on it? IF so, you are far more 'dare devil' than most people...............

Yet the thought of STD's and/or pregnancy is 'big deal.'

(shaking head)....nope, I don't think we speak the same language.

I was not referring to pregnancy. Rant wasted.
I was referring to STD's.
Again I think your probabilities are way off; see Micatela above. And address it please.
Re: costs, I don't know your sources, but again that wasn't my point.
I admitted that while HIV is treatable it is still a horror, my point is that even it is not necessarily deadly.
And my larger points are: 1. we should live a little, and 2. in my judgment your real agenda is fear mongering against sex itself except in those ways that reflect your mormon faith. To wit, you haven't missed an opportunity to ignore any pro-sex ideas and have jumped in, as per usual, with questionable stats about risk. If I say, as I have, that we should use technology and wise decisions, and sobriety and respect and a lot more (read my posts), to minimize physical, emotional, and moral risk, what's the problem?
And several STD's liek herpes, crabs, and I think warts are just a hassle and treatable and live with-able, NOT life threatening. Syphilis, Gonorrhea, and Clamydia are treatable, and fairly easily as I understand. That's the no big whoop. Risk is part of life, low, manageable, controllable risk may be acceptable. the alternative is unappealing and small. And the average sexually active middle class professional or other person in a low risk group is not dropping dead or having organs fall off as a result of STD's. The risk is low if one is smart. Even college kids, how many really pay a huge health price for an active sex life? Like anything else, just be smart and manage it, while living life.

and yes, some science is garbage and anecdotes and experience are better as a practical matter.

Now I know we don't speak the same language.

Now you've become an apologist for scientism?
How do square that with the mormon fictional prehistory?

[MyReality]

I am not going to enter the argument at this stage unless directly asked a question. I am going to provide a bit of information considering the direction the debate is currently going.

Although if one thinks that it is realistic that a person can go through life waiting for that one perfect person to get married without any sort of trial and error is in need of therapy. Life would not be better, as humans have not evolved to be naturally monogamous especially men. Just look at the divorce rate in America or any country. It is very very rare when compared to the whole of humanity to find a couple who has lasted a lifetime together without cheating, seperation, or remarried.

Sexual suppression is a bad thing for the health and society as a whole. As explained in the following article with provided referenced sources. I think it explains very well the unrealistic tendencies people have especially those who are in their later years and no longer have the same sexual urges as that of the younger folk who are just beginning their experiences with the opposite sex. The article goes into more detail but children who grow being taught that sex and anything that pertains to it is something to be ashamed about will grow sexually unhealthy and can become ashamed whenever sexual urges arise which will lead to depression and other problems during the childs lifetime.

Some of the side effects of sexual repression as observed in human beings include lack of self-confidence, low self-esteem, depression, suicidal tendencies, and higher aggressive behavior. A child who has been taught to believe that sex is dirty and bad will often mature to become an adult who is self-conscious about his body and overwhelmed with guilt when the natural desire to breed arouses him. Adults who are restricted in their sexual inclinations will often experience frustration that can result in either suicidal actions or violence towards others.

It should come as a surprise to no one that societies that have more relaxed legislature over sexual matters enjoy a lower violent crime rate and are not often seen butting heads with other societies on the war field. This phenomenon was best documented in a study of one of our closest relatives, the Bonobo ape.

Bonobos, closely related to chimpanzees and also sharing more than 98 percent of the human genetic profile, are a species of primate which uses sexual activity not only for reproduction but also for social bonding. Bonobos have been observed to be indiscriminate in their sexual relations in regards to age or gender, and also are considered to be one of the more peaceful groupings of animals on the planet. Unlike chimpanzees and other animals that have a dominant-male or a strictly monogamous structure, the Bonobos are not often observed being aggressive towards one another over food, mates, or territory.

Sources
The Evil that Men Do
by Stephen G. Michaud & Roy Hazelwood
St. Martin’s Press, NY 1998

Sexual Imagery, Censorship, and the Law - http://www.cybercollege.com/sexrsh.htm
Bonobo Sex and Society, by Frans B.M. de Wall - http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/an ... nobos.html

Link from article: http://www.libchrist.com/political/folly.html

[dianaiad]

I am not going to enter the argument at this stage unless directly asked a question. I am going to provide a bit of information considering the direction the debate is currently going.

Although if one thinks that it is realistic that a person can go through life waiting for that one perfect person to get married without any sort of trial and error is in need of therapy.

My parents are about to celebrate their 65Th anniversary.
My sisters have been married to their spouses for 35 and 40 years respectively.
Both sets of grandparents celebrated 50th wedding anniversaries before they died.

Out of eight aunts and two uncles, only one was divorced...and her second marriage lasted 50 years. The others, all of 'em, lasted at least 60 years. One set celebrated 75 years.

As far as I am aware, none of them ever had the urge to murder or stray.

Even I got to keep my husband for twenty years. It would have been longer, but he died.

So yeah, it can be done--and y'know something else? No therapy required.

[MyReality]

I am not going to enter the argument at this stage unless directly asked a question. I am going to provide a bit of information considering the direction the debate is currently going.

Although if one thinks that it is realistic that a person can go through life waiting for that one perfect person to get married without any sort of trial and error is in need of therapy.

My parents are about to celebrate their 65Th anniversary.
My sisters have been married to their spouses for 35 and 40 years respectively.
Both sets of grandparents celebrated 50th wedding anniversaries before they died.

Out of eight aunts and two uncles, only one was divorced...and her second marriage lasted 50 years. The others, all of 'em, lasted at least 60 years. One set celebrated 75 years.

As far as I am aware, none of them ever had the urge to murder or stray.

Even I got to keep my husband for twenty years. It would have been longer, but he died.

So yeah, it can be done--and y'know something else? No therapy required.

If you're going to quote something make sure to quote it all. I never said it cannot be done, I said.

Although if one thinks that it is realistic that a person can go through life waiting for that one perfect person to get married without any sort of trial and error is in need of therapy. Life would not be better, as humans have not evolved to be naturally monogamous especially men. Just look at the divorce rate in America or any country. It is very very rare when compared to the whole of humanity to find a couple who has lasted a lifetime together without cheating, seperation, or remarried.

Your circle while great to know they been together all this time does not make a dent compared to the numbers of divorces/seperations. Probably a bit to personal for you to know, but were their partners the only ones they ever been with?