You can't let the points in the OP scare you if you are in love and want to get married. You can be brought to court by a woman claiming rape even if you had consenting sex for no reason and have your life ruined that way as well even if you are found not guilty (some universities will kick you out regardless, reputation is affected, etc). Are you going to stop having sex because of that?
[Poll] Will you go on Marriage Strike? - Page 8
Forum Index > General Forum |
Kurr
Canada2338 Posts
You can't let the points in the OP scare you if you are in love and want to get married. You can be brought to court by a woman claiming rape even if you had consenting sex for no reason and have your life ruined that way as well even if you are found not guilty (some universities will kick you out regardless, reputation is affected, etc). Are you going to stop having sex because of that? | ||
TwilightStar
United States649 Posts
| ||
gmsts
England61 Posts
Now that women are more independent they dont really need to find a husband and if they do they are more likely to divorce him if she doesnt feel satified. In the end the only reason for marriages in the first place was to raise children more easily but it seems nowadays no one want to do that until they are in their 40s. | ||
Zionner
Scotland112 Posts
I find the idea of getting married almost repulsive, because I have no respect for the way women act these days. (I would like to say, before I continue, that I have nothing against women, and I respect all the women I know just as much as all the men I know). However, I see SOME (not all) aspects of their behaviour as selfish and disrespectful to us. Right now, from what I see, Women are the ones who have ridiculously high standards, then we have to be the ones chasing them around constantly, while they sit doing nothing, gladly watching us trying to impress them, while getting nothing in return. Finally, IF after all that effort, you get together, then she will eventually demand a commitment like marrige, which for us is basically like entering a legal agreement which agree's to give them a huge amount of our assets and earnings, because (it is more than likely) that they decided to end it all! Yeah....No thanks | ||
SaDGoWu
United States133 Posts
Obviously this isn't "legal" language but law isn't interesting enough for me to study it seriously. Results: 1. Divorce law will be entirely impartial/objective (barring Judicial prejudice) 2. Affirmative action illegal 3. Alot of other bad things illegal etc. Obviously alot of people will scream and cry etc, but really the law in my opinion is about justice and equality, and using laws to compensate where one group is lacking compared to another is human error. | ||
Count9
China10928 Posts
| ||
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
pretty sure that genderless thing wont work. interestingly, in communist countries, in the old days, ppl refer to each other as comrade rather than mr. or ms. or mrs. so it was impossible to tell from a business card whether someone is male or female. i think the issue here should not be equality but fairness. if god wanted everyone equal, we would all have 1 testicle and 1 ovary. | ||
Hynda
Sweden2226 Posts
| ||
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
On September 04 2010 01:53 Hynda wrote: It's interresting stuff. I don't plan on getting married because I'm not religious, I will get married if my spouse really really wants to. However I was raised in a family that never shared economy, every expense was split 50/50 and the income was kept to themselves. My dad died when he was 49 and by then my mother and father had been together for 21 years. I plan to use that aswell, if I was to split up with her she wouldn't get anything that was mine, nor I anything that was her. If we have child and split up and expect to have him/her 50% of the time and pay 50% of the expenses. It's a simple system but it works. there are countries that allow election of separate finance of the husband and wife. usually an agreement needs to be entered prior to marriage. effectively a prenupt. however prenupts are not simple contracts and it is common for courts to redivide the assets when they find prenupts are unfair (but not necessarily unconscionable). | ||
Kong John
Denmark1020 Posts
This is all very interesting indeed thing how legal measures are keeping loved ones apart. I really dont see why governments should control such things. I understand that there are women who are being abused by their husbands and i know this is going to sound harsh. But women really need to get smarter when picking a partner. It seems weird that women should be branded like this, as the weak part of the relationship. | ||
SaDGoWu
United States133 Posts
Anyway aside from ironic banter, Mr, Ms, and Mrs. is just as much a tool of social engineering as Comrade is. The only saving grace is that the people that are doing the majority of the social engineering are too stupid to realize they are doing it... or even what it is. The unfortunate part is that it works on the greater majority of people and therefore society, and as a result laws reflect that. Anyways this subject is largely boring to me because I don't know why some are so inferior to others. What is interesting however is when two arrogant people around the 1-2% percentile try to compete with eachother | ||
Malgrif
Canada1095 Posts
| ||
Mastermind
Canada7096 Posts
| ||
d1v
Sweden868 Posts
The problem is the social reality in these countries: In most cases, men work/provide for the family while women look after the house/children. It's this set up which is causing so much trouble. In the likely case of divorce, men will still have to provide for their ex-wives until they get a job, so they can take care of themselves. If both, men and women were working alike (i.e. earning roughly the same), there would be no or just little alimony to be paid. Therefore, if you are as stupid as to set up your marriage in the above mentioned way, your problem. | ||
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On September 04 2010 04:18 d1v wrote: As far as I know, most western countries have very "equal" laws, which, from a financial point of view do not favour men or women. In case of a divorce, the economically stronger part is obliged for a certain time to pay alimony for the inferior part, whomever this might be. In the vast majority of cases this is not how it is determined. Alimony goes to whoever gets custody, almost regardless of who makes the most money. Since custody goes to the woman the vast majority of the time (with basically no reasoning behind it, by the way), so does the alimony. If both, men and women were working alike (i.e. earning roughly the same), there would be no or just little alimony to be paid. Therefore, if you are as stupid as to set up your marriage in the above mentioned way, your problem. If you set it up any other way you either reverse the problem or fuck over your chances of being a decent parent in the early childhood years. | ||
d1v
Sweden868 Posts
On September 04 2010 04:23 kzn wrote: In the vast majority of cases this is not how it is determined. Alimony goes to whoever gets custody, almost regardless of who makes the most money. Since custody goes to the woman the vast majority of the time (with basically no reasoning behind it, by the way), so does the alimony. I'm studying law in Switzerland, so I can only speak about Swiss and some German law. Both people need to support the child equally, either by taking care of it or by paying alimony. In most of the cases, this will be the father, since custody often times goes to the mother. This however, I think is perfectly fine. What I would want to evade is paying alimony to my ex-wife, which can only be avoided, if she's got a comparable / the same income as you do. If you set it up any other way you either reverse the problem or fuck over your chances of being a decent parent in the early childhood years. I think reversing the thing is just as stupid. Also, you can work and have children at the same time, it's a question of organisation. You might not get to pursue a very ambitious career, but that's the trade off if you want to raise kids by yourself. | ||
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
1. it was equal in theory, but not reality. especially in USA, lawyers advise working mothers to quit their job to maximize the amount the father has to pay. if she regain her job later, he still pay the same amount, even if he come unemployed. it is not equal nor fair. 2. often the father allow the mother to stay home out of a sense of love, honor and duty for her. but for her to repay this with increased financial destruction from a divorce she unilaterally impose is moral perversion. basically the legal system encourage the wife or legal counsel of the wife to behave immorally and dishonestly meanwhile subjecting the victim to permanent financial slavery. | ||
drewcifer
United States192 Posts
On September 02 2010 15:59 dybydx wrote: as well as reduced birth rate. why is that bad? | ||
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
in the USA, that is not a problem. in Japan or Korea, it could be. low birth rate lead to population decline. many of the nation's infrastructure, especially finance and tax are based on the assumption of increasing population and tax revenue. most entitlement programs pay out benefits to older retirees as soon as they collect contributions from young workers. with a decreasing population, the system become unstable government finance crash. there will then be riots on the street like greece. | ||
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
On September 04 2010 00:47 dybydx wrote: @zzoram, you points are totally ignoring the concerns in my OP. 1. the concern here is that men fear they can get screwed even if they HAVE NOT commit acts of abuse or infidelity. not when the divorce result after they HAVE abused their spouse. 2. concern here is not that fathers had to pay child support. its that they had to pay it even if they are unable to. in addition, despite they fulfill the responsibility of being a father, they are still denied their rights as a father. 3. women are fully capable of obtaining gainful employment, at least that is what the feminists claim. sure, if a woman have been a home mother for 10yrs, she need time to adjust. but to say the man is responsible for LIFETIME support is absurd. the woman is equally responsible for making bad marital decision as the man. I'm pretty sure alimony ends when the kids turn 18. | ||
| ||