關於 marry meet ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

她們已被塔利班通緝快20年。如今那些在阿富汗玩音樂的女孩還好嗎？

這次發生動亂的首都喀布爾，也許是阿富汗現代化程度最高的地方 —— 這裡有比例高達60 %的大學生，甚至在這次大變動之前，民眾還可以在電影院，觀看來自歐洲美國的電影。

如今塔利班再度進入到這個城市。

無論阿富汗人民選擇什麼樣的政權，塔利班上台之後，最令人擔憂的還是女性的命運。

塔利班進入喀布爾那一天，一封來自阿富汗女導演的信，已傳開：

「屠殺孩子，因為穿著而殺害婦女；謀殺史學家，暗殺與政府有關聯的人；我們需要支持，否則獨木難支。」

這時候，當地會想起阿富汗那支因為一首歌被通緝了快 20 年的女子搖滾樂團。

塔利班武裝部隊之前曾經說，如果逮住「布卡樂隊」的成員，她們會在喀布爾奧林匹克體育場的注視下被施以極刑，並且在 3 萬人的目光下。

女子樂團名 Burka 的來源，正是一種罩袍的名稱：在1996年起塔利班統治阿富汗之後，每位女性都需穿上這種服飾，身體的皮膚不允許任何暴露。

2003 年，塔利班政權垮台後三名阿富汗女孩，鼓手 Nargiz，貝斯手 Zamina 和主唱 Lorna，便以罩袍為樂隊名，將阿富汗女性的處境以歌聲唱了出來。

We all now wear a burka, you don't know who is who
我們都穿著布卡，你認不出誰是誰
If you want to meet your sister, it can be you uncle too
如果你想和你姐姐打招呼，那也可能是你叔叔

而這首歌也迅速引起了當時國際的關注。有人說這是現實版的《神秘巨星》。

每個樂隊成員：

都需要隱瞞自己的家人，
母親知道了也需要終生保密；
她們需要躲到郊區小房子去拍攝影片，
對於位於戶外的鏡頭，每拍 3 分鐘就得趕快換個地方。

她們而後來又出版了一首《No Burka》，更徹底的諷刺：在兩首歌曲的發行期間，有人以為她們被殺死了，有人以為她們放棄了，而一直相信她們的人，終於等到了回歸。

Meanwhile , the men standing around were making fun of girls and women , laughing at our terror . 「 Go and put on your chadari [ burqa ] , " one called out . 「 It is your last days of being out on the streets , 」 said another . 「 I will marry four of you in one day , 」 said a third .

阿富汗有人自空中墜落：有人選擇冒險逃亡：有人躲在家裡聽到敲門聲萬分驚恐：有人望著每日升起的太陽，不知今日何去何從：少數的人負隅頑抗。

我們在遠方看著這這一切，它不是一個「現代化」倒退的圖景，他們、她們是一個又一個活生生的人。

那些阿富汗玩音樂的女孩，妳們還好嗎？

=================================
「Would」の活用法（総まとめ）
=================================
　
これまで私が生徒さんから最もよくされた質問の一つが「would」の使い方でしょう。wouldを用いた表現は本当に沢山あり、それら全てを説明するのは容易ではありません。そこで今回、過去の記事でも紹介した用法を含め、日常会話において基本となるwouldの用法を、4つの状況毎になるべく分かりやすくまとめてみました。長くなりますが、どうぞ最後まで読んでみて下さい。
　
　
～過去の話をする時～
　
--------------------------------------------------
1) I thought it would rain.
→「雨が降ると思っていました」
--------------------------------------------------
　
過去のある時点で、その先に起こることを予め予測や推測をしていたことを示す言い方です。例えば、「I thought it would rain so I brought an umbrella.（雨が降ると思っていたので、傘を持ってきました）」や「Since I was a kid, I knew I would become a teacher.（私は子供の時から先生になると分かっていました）」のように表現できます。

また、「He said he would _____.（彼が〜すると言っていました）」のように誰かが（過去に）言ったことを他の誰かに伝える状況でも使われます。ポイントは、誰かが何かをすると約束したり、何かをすると意思を述べたことを、他の誰かに伝える状況で用いるのが一般的です。例えば、「He said he would buy coffee for us.（彼は私たちにコーヒーを買うと言っていました。）」や「She said she would talk to him about that issue.（その問題について、彼女は彼に話すと言っていました）」という具合に使われます。
　
✔Wouldの後は動詞の原形がフォロー。
　
＜例文＞
　
When I met my wife 5 years ago, I knew I would marry her one day.
（５年前に妻と出会った当初から、私たちは結婚すると思っていました。）
　
I never thought this proposal would go through.
（この提案が通らないことは最初から分かっていました。）
　
She said she would come to the party.
（彼女はパーティーに来ると言っていました。）
　
　
--------------------------------------------------
2) She would not help me.
→「彼女は手伝ってくれようとしませんでした」
--------------------------------------------------
　
Wouldの後にnotを付け、否定文（Would not）にすることで「〜しようとしなかった」という意味になります。基本的に何かしらの依頼や申し出に対し、乗り気じゃない、協力的じゃない、積極的に応える意欲がない、などのニュアンスで断ったことを表します。例えば、親に何度も仕送りをして欲しいと頼んでるが、いっこうにしてくれない状況では「My parents would not send me money.（私の両親は、仕送りをしようとしてくれない）」と言うことができます。

また、人に限らずテレビやパソコン、車などの機能に対してもwould notを使うことができます。例えば、「今朝、車のエンジンがかかりませんでした」は「My car would not start this morning.」となります。
　
✔肯定文にしても「〜してくれた」とはならず、意味が変わってしまうので注意。「My parents would send me money」と言うと「両親が仕送りをしてくれた」とはならずに、「両親が（何度も）送金した」を意味する。詳しくは下記の3)の解説を参照。
　
＜例文＞
　
I asked him many times but he would not tell me what happened.
（彼に何回も聞きましたが、何が起こったのか教えてくれませんでした。）
　
My girlfriend is really upset with me. She would not talk to me.
（彼女は私に怒っていて口をきいてくれませんでした。）
　
I charged my phone but it would not turn on.
（携帯を充電したけど電源が入らなかった。）
　
　
--------------------------------------------------
3) In the summer, I would go camping with my friends.
→「夏によく友達とキャンピングに行っていました」
--------------------------------------------------
　
過去によくやっていた行動パターンや習慣を表す際にもwouldが使われ、used to（よく～したものだ）と似たような役割を果たします。しかし、used toの場合は、習慣となっている行動がより高頻度なもので、且つ“今はもうしていない”ということを強調するニュアンスがあるのに対し、wouldの場合は、習慣となっていた行動頻度が週1回であろうと年1回であろうと、その頻度には関係なく「よく〜した」ということが話の趣旨となります。例えば、「When I was a kid, my grandmother would bake cookies.（子供の頃、私の祖母はよくクッキーを焼いてくれていました）」と言うと、クッキーを作る頻度ではなく、祖母がクッキーを作ってくれていたことが要点になります。それに対し、「私は高校生の頃、毎日サッカーの練習をしていました」と言いたいのであれば、used toを使って、「I used to practice soccer every day in high school.」と言うのが適切です。“毎日練習していた”ことが強調され、且つ“今はもう練習をしていない”ことが相手に伝わります。
　
✔過去の“状態”を表す場合はwouldではなくused toを使う。例えば「過去にオートバイを持っていました」は「I used to have a motorocycle.」と言い、「I would have a motorcycle」とは言わない。
　
＜例文＞
　
When I lived in Japan, I would go out drinking almost every week.
（日本に住んでいた頃、ほぼ毎週飲みに行っていました。）
　
Sometimes she would come over and cook Mexican food for us.
（時々、彼女はうちにきてメキシカン料理を作ってくれました。）
　
During the winter, I would get together with my friends and do a nabe party.
（冬に友達とよく鍋パーティーをしていました。）
　
　
～仮定の話をする時～
　
--------------------------------------------------
1) If I won the lottery I would buy a house.
→「もし宝くじが当たったら家を買います」
　
架空の話や実際には起こり得ない出来事について話す時にもwouldを使います。一般的に「If _____, I would _____.（〜だったら〜する）」の形式で表現します。例えば、「世界中のどこにでも住めるとしたら、ハワイに住みます」は「If I could live anywhere in the world, I would live in Hawaii.」と言います。
　
✔文末に「if I knew」に付け足してもOK。
　
＜例文＞
　
If you could date a celebrity, who would it be?
（もし、芸能人と付き合えるとしたら、誰と付き合う？）
　
I would tell you where she was if I knew.
（彼女がどこにいるか知っていたら教えているよ。）
　
If I found a hundred dollars on the ground, I would take it to the police station.
（もし100ドルを拾ったら交番に届けます。）
　
　
--------------------------------------------------
2) Would you try online dating?
→「あなただったら出会い系サイトを試してみますか？」
--------------------------------------------------
　
相手に“もしも”の質問を投げかける時は「Would you _____?」と表現するのが定番で「あなただったら〜しますか？」を意味します。相手の意見やアドバイスを尋ねる場合は「What would you _____?」と表現します。例えば、「あなただったらどうしますか？」と聞くなら「What would you do?」、販売員に「あなただったら何をお勧めしますか？」と尋ねるなら「What would you recommend?」となります。
　
＜例文＞

Would you date someone older than you?
（あなただったら年上の人とお付き合いしますか？）
　
What would you do? Would you apologize?
（あなただったらどうしますか？謝りますか？）
　
Would you be open to living abroad?
（あなただったら外国に住むのはありですか？）
　
　
--------------------------------------------------
3) If I were you I would apologize.
→「私だったら謝ります」
--------------------------------------------------
　
「私だったら〜する」と相手の立場になって何かしらのアドバイスや提案をする場合に使われる表現です。shouldを使った表現よりも控えめに助言したい場合にピッタリの言い回しです。例えば、東京で給料の良い仕事のオファーが入ったが、家族の不幸で地元に引っ越さないといけなくなってしまったと友達に相談され、「私だったら仕事のオファーを断るかな」と言うなら「If I were you I would turn down the offer.」となります。
　
✔日常会話では「If I were you」を省いて、「I would _____」と直接言うことも一般的。
　
✔「If I were in your shoes, I would ______.（私があなたの立場だったら、〜をします」という言い方もある。
　
＜例文＞
　
If I were you I wouldn't go.
（私だったら行かないね。）
　
This milk expired 5 days ago. I wouldn't drink that if I were you.
（この牛乳の消費期限、5日前じゃん。私だったら飲まないよ。）
　
I would call them and ask for a refund.
（私だったら電話して返金を求めるけど。）
　
　
～丁寧・控えめな発言をする時～
　
--------------------------------------------------
1) Would you turn down the volume?
→「音量を下げてくれますか？」
--------------------------------------------------
　
人に何かをリクエストや依頼をする際に「Can you _____?（〜してくれる？）」よりも丁寧にお願いする場合は「Would you _____?（〜してくれますか？）」と表現します。例えば、「この用紙に記入してくれますか？」と丁寧に言いたいなら「Would you fill out this form?」になります。
　
✔より丁寧な言い方が「Would you mind _____?（〜してくれますか？）」。相手に気を使ったとても優しい質問の仕方。
　
＜例文＞
　
Would you close that window?
（あの窓を閉めてもらえますか？）
　
Would you be able to help?
（手伝っていただけないでしょうか？）
　
Would you mind changing seats?
（席を変わっていただけませんか？）
　
　
--------------------------------------------------
2) Would you like a drink?
→「お飲物はいかがですか？」
--------------------------------------------------
　
相手に「〜はいかがですか？」と何かを丁寧にオファーする際にピッタリの表現が「Would you like _____?」です。顧客や年上の人、または面識のない人に対して何かオファーする場合は、この表現を使うのが最も無難でしょう。例えば、会社に訪れた顧客に「熱いお茶はいかがですか？」と聞く場合は「Would you like some hot tea?」と言います。
　
✔友達や家族など、仲の良い人に対してこの表現はちょっと丁寧過ぎる。親しい関係であれば「Do you want _____?」でOK。
　
＜例文＞
　
Would you like a refill?
（飲み物のお代わりはいかがですか？）
　
Would you like to join us?
（よかったら一緒にどうですか？）
　
Would you like me to drive?
（私が運転しましょうか？）
　
　
--------------------------------------------------
3) I would say _____.
→「〜だと思う」
--------------------------------------------------
　
この言い方は自分の意見を述べたり何かを推定する時に使われ「〜だと思う」や「恐らく〜だろう」「〜かな」などに相当する表現です。ハッキリと言い切る感じではなく、物腰柔らかく控えめに発言している印象があります。例えば、「彼女、何歳だと思いますか？」と聞かれた際、相手に失礼ないよう謙虚に意見を述べる場合、「I’d say early thirties. Maybe 32.（30代前半だと思う。32歳くらいかな）」という具合に使います。
　
✔日常会話では「I would say」を「I’d say」と省略して言うことが多い。
　
✔大抵の場合、「I think」の代わりに「I’d say」が使える。「I think」よりも控えめな響き。
　
✔必ず答えが求めらるような質問をされた際、決定的な発言や返答を和らげる言い方として「I would have to say _____（〜と言わざるを得ない）」がある。
　
＜例文＞
　
I'd say it's a four to five hour drive.
（車で4時間から５時間くらいかかるかな。）
　
I'd say this logo looks the best. I like the color and simplicity.
（私はこのロゴが一番だと思います。色とシンプルさがいいと思います。）
　
Both speeches were excellent but I would have to say Adam's speech was better.
（二人ともスピーチは素晴らしかったですが、私はアダムのスピーチの方が良かったと思います。）
　
　
～自分の願望を述べる時～
　
--------------------------------------------------
1) I would love to go.
→「是非行きたいです」
--------------------------------------------------
　
「I would love to」は「I want to」と似た意味で「〜を(が)したい」といった強い願望を伝える時に使われれます。「I want to」の気持ちをより強調した言い方です。例えば、同僚に食事を一緒にしないかと誘われた際、「I would love to join you guys for dinner.」と言います。
　
✔相手の誘いを快く受け入れるときに使われる定番フレーズが「I’d love to!（喜んで！）」
　
✔その他、相手の誘いを丁寧に断るときに使われる決まり文句でもあり、「I’d love to ____ but _____（〜したいのは山々なのですが、〜）」が定番フレーズになる。
　
＜例文＞
　
I would love to meet with you next week.
（是非、来週お会いしたいと思います。）
　
I'd love to! What time should I be there?
（喜んで！何時に行けばいいですか？）
　
I'd love to stay and chat some more but I have to get going.
（残ってもっとお話をしたいのですが、そろそろ行かないといけません。）
　
　
--------------------------------------------------
2) I would like to think that ____.
→「〜であると考えたい」
--------------------------------------------------
　
この表現は「真相はわからないけど、そうであって欲しい・・・」のようなニュアンスとして使われます。例えば、Facebookの個人情報の取り扱いに対し、多少の疑いはあるものの情報はしっかり保護されていると信じたいといった気持ちを表す場合は「I would like to think that Facebook protects our personal information.」となります。また、自分の発言や意見を物腰柔らかく控えめなニュアンスにする役割もあります。例えば、「あなたは良い父親だと思いますか？」という質問に対し「I would like to think I’m a good father.」と答えると、「私は良い父親であると考えたいのですが・・・」といった具合に謙虚な響きになります。
　
✔日常会話では「I would」を「I'd」と短縮して言うことが多い。
　
✔「そうだと思いたい」は「I would like to think so.」
　
＜例文＞
　
I would like to think that hard work pays off.
（努力は報われると信じたいです。）
　
I would like to think professional athletes don't use drugs.
（プロスポーツ選手は、薬物を使用していないと信じたい。）
　
I would like to think my English is getting better.
（自分の英語力が上達してるって思いたいや〜ん。）
　
　
　
　
　
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
　
無料メルマガ『1日1フレーズ！生英語』配信中！
　
通勤・通学などのちょとした合間を利用して英語が学べるメルマガ『1日1フレーズ！生英語』を平日の毎朝6時に配信中！ただ単にフレーズを紹介しているだけではなく、音声を使った学習プロセスが組み込まれているので、メルマガを読むこと自体が学習方法！
　
https://hapaeikaiwa.com/mailmagazine/
　
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～

這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。（加拿大法院鏈接在此：https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8）

這位法王的桃色事件，我是幾年前才聽到。但，藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞，我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過，也有一些活佛跟她表白。（這不只是她，其他地方我也聽過不少）

這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。

很多時候發生這種事情，信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇，或者說她們也精神病，或者說她們撒謊。

我不排除有這種可能性，但，多過一位，甚至多位出來指證的時候，我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。

大寶法王的桃色事件，最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒，第二位是香港的女出家人，現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。

對大寶法王信徒來說，這一次的比較麻煩，因為是有孩子的。（關於有孩子的，我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時，就有聽聞）

如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA，這對法王和他的信徒來說，會很尷尬和矛盾，因為做或不做，都死。

你若問我，我覺得『人數是有力量的』，同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來，是不出奇的。

我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒，如果你們真的愛佛教，先別說批判，但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議，你是間接害了佛教。

（下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容，當中有很多細節。）

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?

F. Delay / Prejudice

CONCLUSION



INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).

[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.

[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.

[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.

[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.

BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.

[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.

[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.

[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.

[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.

[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.

[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.

[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.

[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.

[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.

[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.

[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.

[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:

a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;

b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;

c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;

d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.

[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.

[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.

[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.

[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:

I will definitely find a way to meet her

And you

Remember to take care of yourself if something happens

[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.

[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.

[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.

[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.

[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.

[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.

ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:

3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person

(a) is married to another person, or

(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and

(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or

(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.

[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).

[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.

[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.

[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.

[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.

[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.

[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.

[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.

[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.

[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.

[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.

[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:

[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.

[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:

1. Shelter:

(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?

(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?

(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?

2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:

(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?

(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?

(c) What were their feelings toward each other?

(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?

(e) Did they eat their meals together?

(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?

(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

3. Services:

What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:

(a) preparation of meals;

(b) washing and mending clothes;

(c) shopping;

(d) household maintenance; and

(e) any other domestic services?

4. Social:

(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?

(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?

5. Societal:

What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?

6. Support (economic):

(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?

(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?

(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?

7. Children:

What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?

[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).

[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:

[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.

[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.

[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.

[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:

[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.

[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:

a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.

b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.

c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.

d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.

e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.

f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.

g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.

[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.

[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.

[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.

[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).

[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.

[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.

[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.

[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.

[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.

[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.

[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.

[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:

[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.

[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.

[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.

[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:

[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.

[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:

[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …

[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.

[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.

F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.

[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.

[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.

[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.

[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.

[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.

[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.

[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.

[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.

CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.

[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.

[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.

“Master Elwood”

This week, The Thirsty Sisters answer the world's most difficult questions. Would they pick sex over their favourite food? Or would they leave their partner simply because they are bad in bed? Tune in to find out!

P.S. Shoutout to @GlenRush for inspiring us to make this episode! ?

01:24 Topic of the day
01:51 Higher status or higher earnings
05:14 Uninvolved partner that brings food to the table or involved partner who is not making ends meet
07:17 The one who loves more in a relationship or the one who is loved more
08:58 Marry a stranger or marry someone you hate
11:44 No sex forever or no favourite food
14:34 No love or no Internet forever
16:30 Be the more attractive one in the relationship or your partner is the more attractive in the relationship
18:38 One best sex of your life or have a lot of bad sex
20:26 Lower standard of living with a partner or a higher standard of living all alone
22:43 The one who got away to show up at your wedding or funeral
24:52 Have sex again with the most hated ex or someone whom you have a bad one night stand
27:57 Painful menstrual cramps or never be ever to shave again
29:07 Spend a day with toilet paper trailing behind you or having a lipstick stain on your teeth
31:09 Wear a pad for 12 hours or a get wedgie for 24 hours
33:17 Physical intimacy or true love
35:27 Stay or leave your partner if they are bad in bed

Video mentioned in this episode:
My Biggest Regret
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHHCULSC0bA&t=1s&ab_channel=RyanSylvia

*Disclaimers*:
The legal age for sex in Singapore is 18. While being comfortable with your bodies is a must, please stay safe too by using protection ?
https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-...

Our views in this podcast include only our own experiences as heterosexual women in Singapore, we respect everyone’s views regardless of genders, gender identities and sexual orientations.

Follow The Thirsty Sisters on Spotify and Instagram!
https://www.instagram.com/thethirstys...
https://open.spotify.com/show/5yx8txj...

Featuring:
Sylvia - https://www.instagram.com/sylsylnoc
Nina - https://www.instagram.com/ninatsf

Brand Collaborations/Features:
thirstysisters@noc.com.sg

The Thirsty Sisters TTS TEAM
Co-Founders: Sylvia Chan | Nina Tan
Head of Production: Virus Tan
Crew/Editors: Jeraidine Kwong | Isaac Lim
Motion Graphics Designers: Kher Chyn | Vanessa Riadi
Sound Engineers: Nah Yu En | Mabel Leong
Digital Strategist: Freda Peh

【 二次元に恋をした 】
↓音楽アプリで鬼リピしてね♡↓
https://linkco.re/e2f2MMA0

Music/Lyrics/Mix/Mastered : たかやん (Takayan)
Twitter : https://twitter.com/takayan_gorizal
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/takayan_gorizal/

Illust : Bekuko
Twitter : https://twitter.com/mdmd_114

Track : ALEX COLLINS

【Lyrics】
僕は二次元に恋をした 二次元を作った人は神様
ここなら全員性格も優しいし 大好きな推しも炎上しない！
クソだるい時の中 何より輝かしい「意味」をくれた
画面ん中に突っ込みたい！
あなたから出てきてよ 苦しいよ

根暗な僕 特技も無く すぐ強がる 病みを隠す
大して話広がんない 親友と言える友達もない
一目惚れする絵と声が 一瞬で孤独の概念を壊した
財布の中身はあなたの物
夢見てる！夢でしか会えないけど
尊すぎて結婚してえ！こうさせたのも君の所為！
ヲタクどうこうは関係ねえ！すきなものはすき！
無限大に続いて欲しい物語

例え僕が死んでも 君は歳は取らないでいるから
今に感じる幸福を 噛み締め 今夜もおーぷんどあ！
色んな事 増える鼓動 鬱もあなたを見ればぶっ飛ぶよ
頭の中 あんたばっか 元気に今日もいってらっしゃい！

僕は二次元に恋をした 二次元を作った人は神様
ここなら全員性格も優しいし 大好きな推しも炎上しない！
クソだるい時の中 何より輝かしい「意味」をくれた
画面ん中に突っ込みたい！
あなたから出てきてよ 苦しいよ

【English Lyrics】
I fell in love with two dimension. People who created two dimension is god.
People living here are full of kindness, and the idol I love won't have any scandals!
He is the most powerful meaning for me to live through my dull life.
I want to dive into the monitor so bad!
Can you come out? I am suffering.

Gloomy me, don't even have any skill. But I will strain myself to cover my kinkiness.
We can't make a meaningful conversation. Calling you BFF but actually we aren't even friends.
I fell in love at first sight because of your face and voice. At that moment I can't feel any loneliness.
Things in my wallet are all yours.
Just like my dreams come true! Though we can only meet during dreams.
It's all because of you, you are too important to me, please marry me!
It's not about being an otaku, love is love!
Our story shall never ends.

You won't get old even when I die.
Grab the happiness at this moment, tightly! Let's sesame open again tonight!
Now, I have more courage to deal with different things. Sadness will fly away when they see you.
I can only think of you. Let's start today full of energy!

I fell in love with two dimension. People who created two dimension is god.
People living here are full of kindness, and the idol I love won't have any scandals!
He is the most powerful meaning for me to live through my dull life.
I want to dive into the monitor so bad!
Can you come out? I am suffering.

love leads us to meet each other, but understanding will keep us together.ความรักนำพาคนเรามาพบกัน แต่ความเข้าใจนั้น ที่ทำให้คนเราอยู่ด้วยกัน