View Full Version : Is Marriage an Outdated concept?
Strike For The South
12-10-2010, 19:31
I am supposed to be studying but that Spanish grade will stay the same no matter what, so you lot will have to deal with my thoughts.
Well is it?
We all know the statistics on divorce and unhappiness, we all have anecdotal evidence of our own folks (mine were much better enemies than friends :laugh4:) We all know the western version of marriage is certainly not inate to humanity.
So one may ask why continue the charade?
Now certainly I understand why. I much prefer a relationship to random sex partners. I love the way my heart beats when I hold a pretty girls hand, I love the feeling I get when I share things with someone I like rather than just getting drunk, throwing it in, and running for the penicilin the next morning.
But that doesn't mean I could spend 50 years with that person.
Of course marriage is work and its never perfect but it just seems it may not be WORTH all that trouble these days.
Of course once kids get involved the :daisy: hits the fan. Staying together for the kids is a modern day proverb
Sasaki Kojiro
12-10-2010, 19:42
No, marriage isn't an outdated concept. Outdated conceptions of marriage are outdated.
Doing things that aren't innate to humanity is innate to humanity.
People shouldn't have kids before they really know what they want in life (might turn out to be different than partner's) and shouldn't have a lavish ceremony with a very expensive ring. Those parts are outdated.
81% of college graduates, over 26 years of age, who wed in the 1980s, were still married 20 years later. 65% of college graduates under 26 who married in the 1980s, were still married 20 years later. 49% of high school graduates under 26 years old who married in the 1980s, were still married 20 years later.
80% success simply by being a college grad and over 26, which is like bare minimum.
I am supposed to be studying but that Spanish grade will stay the same no matter what, so you lot will have to deal with my thoughts.
Well is it?
We all know the statistics on divorce and unhappiness, we all have anecdotal evidence of our own folks (mine were much better enemies than friends :laugh4:) We all know the western version of marriage is certainly not inate to humanity.
So one may ask why continue the charade?
Now certainly I understand why. I much prefer a relationship to random sex partners. I love the way my heart beats when I hold a pretty girls hand, I love the feeling I get when I share things with someone I like rather than just getting drunk, throwing it in, and running for the penicilin the next morning.
But that doesn't mean I could spend 50 years with that person.
Of course marriage is work and its never perfect but it just seems it may not be WORTH all that trouble these days.
Of course once kids get involved the :daisy: hits the fan. Staying together for the kids is a modern day proverb
Actually, no, it is not a modern thing. Marriage is designed to protect women, but esp. the children. Marriage is about families, is about children.
The whole point of marriage is to provide a stable, loving environment for children to grow in. The problem with families today has nothing at all to do with the institution of marriage. The problem is with people. People nowadays are lousy, selfish, untrue, unhonorable, scared, pathetic, lazy pieces of garbage who only care about themselves and are not willing to make the sacrafices needed and to put the time into a family. Those problems would only be worse without marriage.
People need to be reformed, not the institution. (likewise I would advocate that people need to be destroyed, not the institution. ~;))
Rhyfelwyr
12-10-2010, 20:18
Monogamous marriage is a feature of history's most virtuous societies.
I am maybe a bit idealistic with this and have no RL experience, but this is the internet so YOU WILL HEAR MY OPINION.
HoreTore
12-10-2010, 20:33
Marriage as a legal entity is completely outdated, yes.
The state has no business interfering with how I choose to live my personal life.
Rhyfelwyr
12-10-2010, 21:22
Marriage as a legal entity is completely outdated, yes.
The state has no business interfering with how I choose to live my personal life.
I think the idea is more that it gives an incentive for people to marry, because of the supposed social benefits of the institution.
Would you get angry at the state interfering with your life if it encouraged you to further your education by supporting your tuition fees?
rory_20_uk
12-10-2010, 21:37
I was a believer in marriage. I think I still would be again in the future.
~:smoking:
HoreTore
12-10-2010, 21:45
I think the idea is more that it gives an incentive for people to marry, because of the supposed social benefits of the institution.
Would you get angry at the state interfering with your life if it encouraged you to further your education by supporting your tuition fees?
If the state said I had to get one particular education; yes I would.
PanzerJaeger
12-10-2010, 21:56
Being tied to one person for the rest of your life is very limiting, in my opinion. In my experience marriages have a few good years in them before acrimony, estrangement, cheating, and 'staying together for the kids' takes hold.
It was certainly different back in the day when you actually needed someone there with you on the farm in case you got sick, when you needed kids to keep the place functional, and when living past 50 was pure luck.
Rhyfelwyr
12-10-2010, 21:59
If the state said I had to get one particular education; yes I would.
So if there was a particular demand for doctors, and they introduced more schemes to get people on programmes to train to become doctors, you would reject to this great intrusion into your personal life? It's the exact same thing with marriage...
HoreTore
12-10-2010, 22:03
So if there was a particular demand for doctors, and they introduced more schemes to get people on programmes to train to become doctors, you would reject to this great intrusion into your personal life? It's the exact same thing with marriage...
Yes, I understand your reasoning, and that is why I said it's an outdated thing as opposed to just plain wrong.
A special programme to promote doctors is OK, when we are in need of doctors. If we are not, then it is not OK. And we no longer have a need for just man-woman relationships.
Rhyfelwyr
12-10-2010, 22:27
Yes, I understand your reasoning, and that is why I said it's an outdated thing as opposed to just plain wrong.
A special programme to promote doctors is OK, when we are in need of doctors. If we are not, then it is not OK. And we no longer have a need for just man-woman relationships.
Well your initial justification for your opposition to marriage, was that "The state has no business interfering with how I choose to live my personal life"...
HoreTore
12-10-2010, 22:33
Well your initial justification for your opposition to marriage, was that "The state has no business interfering with how I choose to live my personal life"...
No, my inital statement was that is an outdated concept ~;)
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
12-10-2010, 22:42
Actually, no, it is not a modern thing. Marriage is designed to protect women, but esp. the children. Marriage is about families, is about children.
The whole point of marriage is to provide a stable, loving environment for children to grow in. The problem with families today has nothing at all to do with the institution of marriage. The problem is with people. People nowadays are lousy, selfish, untrue, unhonorable, scared, pathetic, lazy pieces of garbage who only care about themselves and are not willing to make the sacrafices needed and to put the time into a family. Those problems would only be worse without marriage.
People need to be reformed, not the institution. (likewise I would advocate that people need to be destroyed, not the institution. ~;))
If it soley to have kids then..... guess I'm out. :laugh4:
I hate the thought if I marry a very pretty girl that in 50 years she will be just as ugly as me.... I want to be like Hugh Hefner!
gaelic cowboy
12-10-2010, 23:32
I think marriage is outdated I think it should be scrapped as a legal concept completely.
People shouldn't have kids before they really know what they want in life
Nature is cruel our world tells women to follow this advice Sasaki but she is likely going to be incapable of bearing children by then.
The truth is women should have there kids early but our society has given up on the lifestyle that allowed this to work.
HoreTore
12-10-2010, 23:46
A perfect situation will never occur.
Thus we should aim to make the best of what we get.
Louis VI the Fat
12-10-2010, 23:53
Man I tell that guy I want to wait a bit before we get wed and he runs crying all over the internets with some existential crisis about it.
Rhyfelwyr
12-11-2010, 00:03
No, my inital statement was that is an outdated concept ~;)
It was part and parcel of your original statement, no weasling out this time!
I think marriage is outdated I think it should be scrapped as a legal concept completely.
I agree with the bit about the legal issue, it was only ever made a legal issue in the mid-17th century. It was a practical move to make then, it also had a lot of value with the nuclear family as the basic social unit for much of the twentieth century. Less so now, but I still think it is of some value.
Nature is cruel our world tells women to follow this advice Sasaki but she is likely going to be incapable of bearing children by then.
The truth is women should have there kids early but our society has given up on the lifestyle that allowed this to work.
A problem that is only going to get worse with a new generation brainwashed into thinking that "education--->career---->nice retirement--->grave" is the way to go about life.
I actually think all these latter middle-aged women having kids is more of a social problem than people having them when they are young (within reason of course).
HoreTore
12-11-2010, 00:07
Man I tell that guy I want to wait a bit before we get wed and he runs crying all over the internets with some existential crisis about it.
You're going after Strike?
Does that mean his sis is now fair game??
It was part and parcel of your original statement, no weasling out this time!
Most certainly not! It was a follow-up statement, given that my first statement was true! ~;)
And weasling out of stuff is a proud tradition of mine, are you trying to make me deny my heritage?
Rhyfelwyr
12-11-2010, 00:16
Most certainly not! It was a follow-up statement, given that my first statement was true! ~;)
Au contraire, your point about rights/your personal life was not contingent on your point about marriage being outdated.
Gah! You are going to make me turn into another Sasaki! Much as his contributions are important, one in the forum is enough! Already we're debating about how we are debating and not what we were meant to be debating about!
gaelic cowboy
12-11-2010, 00:20
I actually think all these latter middle-aged women having kids is more of a social problem than people having them when they are young (within reason of course).
There is often a nagging feeling of consumerism gone mad in the back of my head when I watch tv programmes on IVF and the like.
We should have supports for child rearing at a younger age so the women can return to the workforce or education later on, part of the problem seems to be the endless waiting for things to be perfect.
Rhyfelwyr
12-11-2010, 00:27
Yeah. I don't understand why these career focused psycho-women go on TV complaining about people giving birth in their late teens/early twenties, when it is a completely healthy time to have a child. Doing it to live off benefits is bad but they are not all like that. It ties in with what I'm saying in the education thread, for some reason now everyone has to have a career and put their children second.
And then these same women go on to have children at 45 when there is a much greater risk of complications with the pregnancy, not to mention the fact that they will quite likely be dead/incapacitated before they are grandparents. It's not even fair to their families. Doing the best for the child my ass, they just want to do their own thing in life.
gaelic cowboy
12-11-2010, 00:39
Yeah. I don't understand why these career focused psycho-women go on TV complaining about people giving birth in their late teens/early twenties, when it is a completely healthy time to have a child. Doing it to live off benefits is bad but they are not all like that. It ties in with what I'm saying in the education thread, for some reason now everyone has to have a career and put their children second.
And then these same women go on to have children at 45 when there is a much greater risk of complications with the pregnancy, not to mention the fact that they will quite likely be dead/incapacitated before they are grandparents. It's not even fair to their families. Doing the best for the child my ass, they just want to do their own thing in life.
My granny was married at 19 to my grandfather and then went on to have 7 kids and that would have been seen as a medium sized family.
The career focused psycho-women are a joke compared to her life.
Rhyfelwyr
12-11-2010, 00:42
My granny was married at 19 to my grandfather and then went on to have 7 kids and that would have been seen as a medium sized family.
The career focused psycho-women are a joke compared to her life.
Yep, those psycho-women are really just a product of their times. It's like with drug addicts, its the way they were raised. In the case of the psycho-women we're told to think it is good and liberating, but is it really?
heh, my Grandmother on my mothers side of the family had 10 sisters and 1 brother (living in Belfast at the time).
There should be no state intervention in marriage. No tax breaks for married couples, and all that other nonsense either.
It should be about love and relationships, between two people. If they want to have a service or a commitment, they can go ahead. If they are homosexual and the church they are marrying in allows homosexual marriage, they can go in. "Marriage" is up to the people involved.
HoreTore
12-11-2010, 01:09
between two people
Why limit it to two?
If three people want to live together in a relationship, shouldn't they?
Typical example is two. As there is no legal involvement, there could be more as bigamy would not be a crime. However, there would not be happy church folk if you disregard their practices and did a christian wedding.
Outdated? No. But, like anything, marriage isn't for everyone.
Doing things that aren't innate to humanity is innate to humanity.
This about sums it up.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-12-2010, 19:49
Typical example is two. As there is no legal involvement, there could be more as bigamy would not be a crime. However, there would not be happy church folk if you disregard their practices and did a christian wedding.
There should be no state intervention in marriage. No tax breaks for married couples, and all that other nonsense either.
It should be about love and relationships, between two people. If they want to have a service or a commitment, they can go ahead. If they are homosexual and the church they are marrying in allows homosexual marriage, they can go in. "Marriage" is up to the people involved.
"Typical example is two" is for one reason: children have two parents.
Marriage is a social institution all about children. It's about a stable environment for raising your progeny and protecting them.
All this guff about homosexuals and "straight" couples wanting to have their choice of "marriage" or "civil partnership is complete rubbish.
Two men together will never be married in the same way as a man and a woman.
HoreTore
12-12-2010, 19:52
"Typical example is two" is for one reason: children have two parents.
In your fantasy world, yes.
In the real world, human children have been raised by the extended family for milennia.
"Typical example is two" is for one reason: children have two parents.
Marriage is a social institution all about children. It's about a stable environment for raising your progeny and protecting them.
All this guff about homosexuals and "straight" couples wanting to have their choice of "marriage" or "civil partnership is complete rubbish.
Two men together will never be married in the same way as a man and a woman.
Or you could read what I said, get rid of state intervention, then no one will care about homosexual marriage or whatever other than churches and people petitioning them for wanting to get 'married'. Keep it in the churches and let them decide.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-12-2010, 20:12
Or you could read what I said, get rid of state intervention, then no one will care about homosexual marriage or whatever other than churches and people petitioning them for wanting to get 'married'. Keep it in the churches and let them decide.
but I don't agree with you.
I'm not a fan of universal bastardry, among other things it is legally untidy.
Legally untidy? What does that even mean? There are litteraly no situations in life where I have had to put on a form that I am an "illegetimate" child. Very few people care anymore whether a person's parents were married when they were born.
EDIT
Oh, and I also think that marriage should be private. If the tax breaks have something to do with raising children then why not just give the tax breaks to couples with children? There are plenty of married couples who never have kids.
but I don't agree with you.
I'm not a fan of universal bastardry, among other things it is legally untidy.
Weird, since according to my suggestion, you can have marriage exactly as you (your church) want it without anyone telling you anything differently.
That homosexual couple said they had a 'marriage' at some random church? You can turn around and go "You are not married according to my beliefs". Your marriages can have the certificates and be certified by your church/sect. It could mean something, especially as you are before god making your vows, it means something to you, opposed to all these others who were just 'married' else where.
Since you are married, your kids wouldn't be bastards (at least by definition) anyway.
Also, it isn't legally untidy. I don't see how it is in the slightest and if anything, it makes things legally more tidy, as there are less loophoops, tax evasion, and all those wonderful things.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-13-2010, 11:00
Weird, since according to my suggestion, you can have marriage exactly as you (your church) want it without anyone telling you anything differently.
That homosexual couple said they had a 'marriage' at some random church? You can turn around and go "You are not married according to my beliefs". Your marriages can have the certificates and be certified by your church/sect. It could mean something, especially as you are before god making your vows, it means something to you, opposed to all these others who were just 'married' else where.
Since you are married, your kids wouldn't be bastards (at least by definition) anyway.
Also, it isn't legally untidy. I don't see how it is in the slightest and if anything, it makes things legally more tidy, as there are less loophoops, tax evasion, and all those wonderful things.
For a Socialist you're not big on ordering society, are you?
People should be married before they have children, and they should stay married after. That is not my belief, it is my conviction, and i believe it should be legislated for in the same way as racism is legislated for.
why not just give the tax breaks to couples with children? There are plenty of married couples who never have kids.
They do do that, at least in Australia, not sure overseas. But, here defacto relationships that reach a certain time-scale (generally longer than 2 years) are counted as being "married" from a tax perspective.
I still believe in mariage. Personally, I found the decision whether to have or not have kids a much tougher and more difficult decision than the decision to get married or not. Everything is a choice in our modern day society, and if you really think things through, those choices aren't very easy to make.
Then again, I don't want to change the present for the past. Living in a society where getting married (and staying married, even if you hate each other) and having kids is more or less an obligation because of social pressure, doesn't seem better than what we have now.
Gah! You are going to make me turn into another Sasaki! Much as his contributions are important, one in the forum is enough! Already we're debating about how we are debating and not what we were meant to be debating about!
Sasaki should go in Belgian politics.
There should be no state intervention in marriage. No tax breaks for married couples, and all that other nonsense either.
It should be about love and relationships, between two people. If they want to have a service or a commitment, they can go ahead. If they are homosexual and the church they are marrying in allows homosexual marriage, they can go in. "Marriage" is up to the people involved.
Nonsense.
We don't live in Hollywood.
People living together share more than love. They share bank accounts, possessions, they take each other into account when making career choices, there are many interferences speaking on the level of finances and possessions. There has to be a framework and legal protection for that. People who marry can benefit from that framework, people who decide to live together without marriage, decide not to have that framework and a minimal set of rules. That's part of the choice you make.
The "until dead" stuff, ooh's and aah's and rings and white dress, fancy cars, big party, that's the fairy tale marriage, which is all nice and romantic and all that, good for writers and poets and fluffy souls and to make movies that can be viewed around Valentine's day and Christmas, but let's not limit the concept marriage to that, please.
Also, apart from the legal marriage, you have the religious marriage. Those two should be viewed strictly seperated. The legal marriage has to follow the rules of our present day society (including equality); the religous marriage needs to follow the rules of whatever you believe in and nothing of that should be enforcable by law. For once, Belgium has got this right: if you want a religous marriage, you marry twice: once before the law, and once in the church (or whatever place of worship you wish). Those two marriages are strictly seperated, as it should be. For the law is for real, for the church is also for real, but it's a different aspect of reality.
Imo, "marriage" as the legal framework to organise a relationship and offer minimal protection for all parties involved, should indeed not be limited to two persons, and certainly not to hetero couples. As for marriage in your religion, meh, couldn't care less, as long as religion doesn't dictate what the legal marriage should be and as long none of what's in the "holy books" is enforceable by law, it's all fine by me.
In the real world, human children have been raised by the extended family for milennia.
This is so true.
People should be married before they have children, and they should stay married after. That is not my belief, it is my conviction, and i believe it should be legislated for in the same way as racism is legislated for.
I think that a couple should only have a child if they are in a relationship that is both stable and long term, but I don't see what that has to do with marriage. There are plenty of marriages that meet only one or neither condition and plenty of non-married relationships that do meet those conditions.
rory_20_uk
12-13-2010, 12:34
Past performance does not predict future performance.
Having a child changes things and what seemed to be a stable long term relationship can suddenly come to an abrupt end without warning.
Of course Marriage isn't going to magically fix or break this.
~:smoking:
Louis VI the Fat
12-13-2010, 12:37
Weddings are romantic!
I'm going to marry with lots of flowers, a string quartet, and a gorgeous dress (the wife, me I'll wear a suit). I'll do the design of everything myself, except for the dress, which must remain a surprise.
Then I'm going to have children. Two daughters. They're going to wear cute little dresses every day. My own living barbiedolls. A different pair of shoes every day. Twice daily! No, another complete outfit for every activity altogether!
I still believe in mariage. Personally, I found the decision whether to have or not have kids a much tougher and more difficult decision than the decision to get married or not. Everything is a choice in our modern day society, and if you really think things through, those choices aren't very easy to make.
:yes:
Being married is no different on a relationship level than living with someone. My relationship with my wife changed when we moved in together. Nothing changed after the actual wedding.
People living together share more than love. They share bank accounts, possessions, they take each other into account when making career choices, there are many interferences speaking on the level of finances and possessions. There has to be a framework and legal protection for that. People who marry can benefit from that framework, people who decide to live together without marriage, decide not to have that framework and a minimal set of rules. That's part of the choice you make.
:yes:
Marriage takes care of a ton of otherwise annoying legal stuff with regard to finances, wills, mortgages, and similar stuff. If you want to do those same things without a legal marriage, it's far more work. Also, not everyone who is married gets a tax break. That system is largely for couples with a large income disparity between the two partners; that's a situation which is quickly decreasing in popularity.
For a Socialist you're not big on ordering society, are you?
I am not authoritarian. I highly prefer people to operate independently within a framework, opposed to me having to tell them anything, as if it comes to them by natural instinct.
People living together share more than love. They share bank accounts, possessions, they take each other into account when making career choices, there are many interferences speaking on the level of finances and possessions. There has to be a framework and legal protection for that
Easy. Whoever has their name on it, owns it. If it is shared (and if it is, it would already been within its own contract), then it is shared. Pretty simple using already existing arrangements and contracts.
Easy. Whoever has their name on it, owns it. If it is shared (and if it is, it would already been within its own contract), then it is shared. Pretty simple using already existing arrangements and contracts.
That would lead to an awful lot of very unfair situations in many marriages if that would be the rule. It would also lead to constant discussions between the couple whereas a legal framework would take that burden away. If you don't like the legal framework, you can make a good prenuptial agreement in which you organise everything, to avoid the burden of having to discuss and see who pays what/owns what for each and every single transaction.
The real world is not a simple place.
That would lead to an awful lot of very unfair situations in many marriages if that would be the rule. It would also lead to constant discussions between the couple whereas a legal framework would take that burden away. If you don't like the legal framework, you can make a good prenuptial agreement in which you organise everything, to avoid the burden of having to discuss and see who pays what/owns what for each and every single transaction.
The real world is not a simple place.
How would it be unfair?
Let's say me and you got 'married', you owned a house and I owned a car. Since we got married, I now own half of your house, and you own half of my car and all this other nonsense. It should be if we ended up divorced, you should keep your house and I keep the car. Me being entitled to half of your house and a percentage of your savings accounts, etc etc, is totally uncalled for and "unfair".
If we had a shared account for example and wanted to end that, then obviously money should be split, but then that is the risks of the shared account. Having me raid your private accounts and make arguments like "Andres makes more than me, I am adjusted to having him around, give me his money please" is totally ridiculous.
For other examples by TinCow, Wills already exist (so no need for marriage), Custody of Children already exist on the birth certificate (Mother and Father, etc), Mortgages? If the mortgage is shared, then it is split, if the mortgage is in the name of one person, then that one person is responsible for it. So all the legal work is already there anyway.
How would it be unfair?
Let's say me and you got 'married', you owned a house and I owned a car. Since we got married, I now own half of your house, and you own half of my car and all this other nonsense. It should be if we ended up divorced, you should keep your house and I keep the car. Me being entitled to half of your house and a percentage of your savings accounts, etc etc, is totally uncalled for and "unfair".
This is incorrect. Assets which were wholey and seperately owned prior to marriage remain the property of the original owner, as do all separately earned assets during the marriage which are strictly segregated without any intermingling of any kind. The property that is split is property which is gained during the marriage and handled as joint property during the marriage.
If we had a shared account for example and wanted to end that, then obviously money should be split, but then that is the risks of the shared account. Having me raid your private accounts and make arguments like "Andres makes more than me, I am adjusted to having him around, give me his money please" is totally ridiculous.
This is not ridiculous at all. If both partners in a marriage agree that one partner is going to stop working, for whatever reason, and be supported by the other, then the non-working partner's earning potential is greatly impacted. Regardless of previous experience, a person will have a lot of difficulty getting back into the job market after 10 years of unemployment. Alimony is intended to compensate for this penalty to the non-working person's earning potential.
For other examples by TinCow, Wills already exist (so no need for marriage), Custody of Children already exist on the birth certificate (Mother and Father, etc), Mortgages? If the mortgage is shared, then it is split, if the mortgage is in the name of one person, then that one person is responsible for it. So all the legal work is already there anyway.
Yes, the system exists, but it's heavily under-utilized. For whatever reason, people simply do not take care of their own legal arrangements. Over half of all US citizens die intestate. Without the marriage inheritence provisions, there would be even more serious difficulties with estates in this country than there already are.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-13-2010, 15:56
I think that a couple should only have a child if they are in a relationship that is both stable and long term, but I don't see what that has to do with marriage. There are plenty of marriages that meet only one or neither condition and plenty of non-married relationships that do meet those conditions.
Now, I agree with this... and I am a realist, I genuinely think people should stay together for life, but this should not be forced on them.
Where I get confused is why you wouldn't marry. I just can't fathom that, if you love each other and you plan on staying together, getting married makes that more likely to work out, and gives you both protection if, heaven forfend, things do go South.
How would it be unfair?
Mr. A and Mr. B marry. They adopt two children. B quits his job as a highly paid engineer to take care of the children and the tasks that need to be done in the house (cleaning, cooking, ironing, etc.) while A keeps working as a lawyer. After 10 years, A, who works from 7.00 am 'til 9.00 pm six days a week, which he can do, because B takes care of all the rest, is a partner in a major law firm and drives a Jaguar. He bought a villa with swimming pool on his name, where he and the family lives. Now that the kids are a bit older, B started to work part time as a low civil servant, since he couldn't find a job equal to his degree, because of his unemployment during 10 years. He drives a 10 year old Citroën; it's all he needs to go shopping, since he can go to work on foot. A has obligations, stocks, money, a grand total of 500.000 € in savings; and a second residence, a 1.000.000 € villa in Southern France, on his name. Three years later, A decides he wants to start a relationship with Louise, a hot 20 year old shemale he hired a week ago as his secretary. A and B divorce.
In your perfect and simple world, A will leave with the Jaguar, the money, the real estate. B, who has sacrificied himself so that A could develop his career, will have nothing but a 13 year old Citroën that needs to be replaced.
Fair or not?
Mr. A and Mr. B marry. They adopt two children. B quits his job as a highly paid engineer to take care of the children and the tasks that need to be done in the house (cleaning, cooking, ironing, etc.) while A keeps working as a lawyer. After 10 years, A, who works from 7.00 am 'til 9.00 pm six days a week, which he can do, because B takes care of all the rest, is a partner in a major law firm and drives a Jaguar. He bought a villa with swimming pool on his name, where he and the family lives. Now that the kids are a bit older, B started to work part time as a low civil servant, since he couldn't find a job equal to his degree, because of his unemployment during 10 years. He drives a 10 year old Citroën; it's all he needs to go shopping, since he can go to work on foot. A has obligations, stocks, money, a grand total of 500.000 € in savings; and a second residence, a 1.000.000 € villa in Southern France, on his name. Three years later, A decides he wants to start a relationship with Louise, a hot 20 year old shemale he hired a week ago as his secretary. A and B divorce.
In your perfect and simple world, A will leave with the Jaguar, the money, the real estate. B, who has sacrificied himself so that A could develop his career, will have nothing but a 13 year old Citroën that needs to be replaced.
Fair or not?
Unfortunately, I was operating in a more common real world environment, where both Mr. A and Mr. B are both in employment in order to make ends meet, so there isn't such a disparity, or is that just revealing my working class roots where both my parents had to work, my friends parents having to work, even having second jobs.
In such a situation, Mr. B wouldn't give up his job as an engineer and they both either share responsibilities, or since they are both high fliers, they can hire a nanny to deal with those things while kids are at a very young age, and later when they are at school, nanny isn't needed. Even if Mr B and Mr A were working class, there would be the parents/parents-in-law.
I will be honest, in such a situation you described, it is very tricky. Obviously, if Mr. B continued raising the children, Mr. A would have to cater for them, and also help out Mr. B in the form of assistance. Similar example even if the kids were shared between them. In many ways, Mr. B was very foolish in giving up his career.
Devastatin Dave
12-13-2010, 17:31
Marraige is not outdated just perverted by government. Government should not recognise marriage or reward it or penalize it. Simple as that.
Marraige is not outdated just perverted by government. Government should not recognise marriage or reward it or penalize it. Simple as that.
So basically what I advocated?
Devastatin Dave
12-13-2010, 18:04
So basically what I advocated?
If i had bothered to read it instead of just spouting off without examining the entire thread, yes... :laugh4:
Marraige is not outdated just perverted by government. Government should not recognise marriage or reward it or penalize it. Simple as that.
I agree with getting rid of rewards and penalties, however I do think it is useful for the government to recognize it due to the legal implications. There are many aspects of the law which discuss what happens with a person's assets and body when they can no longer make decisions for themselves. All of these laws have 'default' rules which specificy a certain person as the guardian/beneficiary. These defaults change depending on whether a person is single (parents or children, depending on circumstances) or married (spouse). Without some kind of formal acknowledgment of a relationship by the government, a very large number of spouses would lose those roles. Marriage is a nice and easy for a person to say 'I want this person to have legal power to inherit my assets and make certain medical decisions about my life.' Society as a whole would be worse off without that aspect of it. Limiting govermental involvement in marriage to just this aspect would also not prejudice those who did not get married, because they can still accomplish the exact same thing... they just have to do more work themselves to get the same result.
A man isn't complete until he is married, then he is finished.
Devastatin Dave
12-13-2010, 18:51
Good one Drone!!!
Tellos Athenaios
12-13-2010, 19:51
Zsa Zsa Gabor? Misses the in love bit though.
HoreTore
12-14-2010, 14:41
A female "deciding" to stop working and tend to the kids have noone to blame but themselves if they find themselves in poverty should the marriage break up.
It's their choice to stop working, and they of course know that it may make them rather poor. So I don't really care...
rory_20_uk
12-14-2010, 15:02
Some women do seem to think that they can get married and then immediately decide to go part time or stop altogether, safe in the knowledge that they'll get what hubbie is earning from working 12 hour days when commuting is added in. And any future earnings potentially lost can also be reclaimed from hubbie!
In some relationships both might decide that this is best. Some men, if faced with the long term implications might rethink their dear wife's "sacrifice" of her career and think that in fact she can continue to do some work as opposed to be elevated to the "women who do lunch" category.
~:smoking:
Some women do seem to think that they can get married and then immediately decide to go part time or stop altogether, safe in the knowledge that they'll get what hubbie is earning from working 12 hour days when commuting is added in. And any future earnings potentially lost can also be reclaimed from hubbie!
In some relationships both might decide that this is best. Some men, if faced with the long term implications might rethink their dear wife's "sacrifice" of her career and think that in fact she can continue to do some work as opposed to be elevated to the "women who do lunch" category.
Then there are those who are married for a couple of years and get millions from the divorce.
rory_20_uk
12-14-2010, 17:27
It is truly insane. If I were Paul I'd have had Heather put down.
~:smoking:
HoreTore
12-14-2010, 18:24
It is truly insane. If I were Paul I'd have had Heather put down.
~:smoking:
I've honestly never understood that Anglican practice....
If you divorce your wife in England, are you required to pay her a % of your wage "just because"? Or is it just to fund your children? Or what?
rory_20_uk
12-14-2010, 19:27
I've honestly never understood that Anglican practice....
If you divorce your wife in England, are you required to pay her a % of your wage "just because"? Or is it just to fund your children? Or what?
There have even been some cases where wives have tried to "trap" their husband to living in England long enough to get divorced here for the settlement.
I honestly don't think that there is an explanation that I understand: if a wife gives up her job, she doesn't get what she could reasonably have expected, but instead suddenly gets a percentage of what hubby was on (great for the young secretary who bags the manager). Oh, and a slice of the pension of course. Kids? Wife gets those and the dad gets to take part in their upbringing by paying for everything... :wall:
~:smoking:
ICantSpellDawg
12-16-2010, 15:58
The concept of marriage as a civil institution is an outdated concept. The concept of marriage in the spiritual and cultural sense is not. Civil unions for all - everyone should have a key man/woman whether they are sexual partners or not. After I got the civil union I would get married in a Catholic Church, though...
HoreTore
12-16-2010, 17:15
I wouldn't have a civil union either.
I want no mention of my love life in the official records of my state.
ICantSpellDawg
12-16-2010, 17:17
what about the benefits?
HoreTore
12-16-2010, 17:18
There shouldn't be any.
I don't understand why Couples need benefits anyway when it is the single adults which need them. In a partnership, you have two incomes so basically everything is "half-price" as it is shared. As a single adult, it is only you, so you have to pay full price for everything. Infact, the biggest example for this is when you go on holiday. As you only pay for the room which caters for two people, you effectively pay double the price than a couple.
When you start adding up all the maths, you can clearly see that sharing with someone else is a benefit within itself.
HoreTore
12-16-2010, 23:00
Indeed.
Food is another very good example. As a single person, you basically have two choices: eat the same for days and have little food variety, or throw away 30-50% of your food.
I wouldn't have a civil union either.
I want no mention of my love life in the official records of my state.
What, you don't trust the state? Are you being a bad little commie? ~;)
HoreTore
12-17-2010, 01:05
What, you don't trust the state? Are you being a bad little commie? ~;)
Being an anarchist, no. Don't see how that's surprisinh though...
Rhyfelwyr
12-17-2010, 01:21
I don't see how anarchism is consistent with the rest of the views you express on these boards...
HoreTore
12-17-2010, 01:27
I don't see how anarchism is consistent with the rest of the views you express on these boards...
Social anarchism. On the economic side of life I'm all for public solutions and government ownership. But when it comes to peoples private life and social control, I belive in as few laws as possible. And I have never had even the slightest bit of respect for "authority".
Rhyfelwyr
12-17-2010, 02:29
So you're not actually an anarchist...
HoreTore
12-17-2010, 22:38
As far as this thread is concerned, yes, I am...
I don't understand why Couples need benefits anyway when it is the single adults which need them. In a partnership, you have two incomes so basically everything is "half-price" as it is shared. As a single adult, it is only you, so you have to pay full price for everything. Infact, the biggest example for this is when you go on holiday. As you only pay for the room which caters for two people, you effectively pay double the price than a couple.
When you start adding up all the maths, you can clearly see that sharing with someone else is a benefit within itself.
You're under no obligation whatsoever to remain single :shrug:
As for benefits: married couples don't have benefits granted by the state here. No tax cuts because you're married. No social benefits because you're married. In fact, if you're married, the combined income of both partners is usually too high to get any kind of benefits. The fact that certain expenses are easier to carry, because you're with two, well, what can I say. It's a sad and bitter man who is jealous about that. What do you propose then? A marriage tax that pays for the rent of single men and women :dizzy2:
You're under no obligation whatsoever to remain single :shrug:
Shouldn't that be the other way round? Not being single is a consensual choice of two people... you can't just decide not to be 'not single' :wink:
Shouldn't that be the other way round? Not being single is a consensual choice of two people... you can't just decide not to be 'not single' :wink:
Sure you can. It's called growing a pair of balls and going out to find a girlfriend. Keep asking women out until one of them says yes, adjusting your approach and style to take into account previous failures. It's pretty much a fool-proof method.
Sure you can. It's called growing a pair of balls and going out to find a girlfriend. Keep asking women out until one of them says yes, adjusting your approach and style to take into account previous failures. It's pretty much a fool-proof method.
But I actually have standards. I could go out and get a girlfriend, but it would not be a compatible match. I want a female with a brain, and with appreciation of History, perhaps even interested in playing a few computer games too, and doesn't look like a shebear, this is proven even more difficult due to the area I am currently working in, where the only place of intelligentsia is the Hospital (where I work). This is most evident by the fact 90% of females in the local area when asked "Who is Churchill?" will reply with "Isn't he the nodding dog on TV? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OP3a_oklTA)" Then girls I am interested have in the past, unfortunately been not-single (legitimitely).
But I actually have standards. I could go out and get a girlfriend, but it would not be a compatible match. I want a female with a brain, and with appreciation of History, perhaps even interested in playing a few computer games too, and doesn't look like a shebear, this is proven even more difficult due to the area I am currently working in, where the only place of intelligentsia is the Hospital (where I work). This is most evident by the fact 90% of females in the local area when asked "Who is Churchill?" will reply with "Isn't he the nodding dog on TV? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OP3a_oklTA)" Then girls I am interested have in the past, unfortunately been not-single (legitimitely).
It sounds to me like you're limiting yourself too much. Just because someone doesn't have the same exact interests as you at the moment doesn't mean you aren't compatible. First, perhaps the person would be interested in those things, but hasn't really been exposed to them. For instance, I'm a hardcore gamer and filmsnob, but my wife did not play games and did not have much knowledge about cinema when I met her. She is now a gamer and loves movies almost as much as I do. People change, so a lack of present interest in a certain area shouldn't be a reason not to date someone.
Second, keep in mind that ignorance is not the same as stupidity. There are many people in the world who are intelligent but simply haven't been exposed to the same amount of education that you have. I also love History, but it's just one of those areas which, for various reasons, very few people learn much about. A person who is currently ignorant about history is not necessarily a person who is uninterested in history. IMHO, curiosity is a far more important trait than actual knowledge. Knowledge can be gained at any time, but the drive to gain it is hard to spark.
Third, opposites attract. Having things in common is important in a relationship, but it's also important to be different. When people have some different aspects, those differences make the other person more interesting and unique. Differences can be a very positive thing and can encourage a person to break out of their shell and experience new things which they never would have done before. The goal of a relationship is not to find someone who is your long-lost identical twin, it is to find someone who is compatible. Often times those who have the most difficulty finding a partner need a partner that is 'different' from them more than anyone else.
Finally, even if a person isn't right for you, the simple fact that you're dating various people expands your social horizons and allows you to meet people you otherwise wouldn't. Perhaps the girl you ask out isn't the right person for you, but maybe while dating her you'll meet someone who is.
Finally, even if a person isn't right for you, the simple fact that you're dating various people expands your social horizons and allows you to meet people you otherwise wouldn't. Perhaps the girl you ask out isn't the right person for you, but maybe while dating her you'll meet someone who is.
Hah, one time that happened, it really bite me back hard and people in that social circle. I was sort of seeing someone, but I ended up closer with her friend, so I broke it off with the earlier one (we didn't anywhere anyway, it was like we met up some where casually, not even kissed). Anyway, this friend wanted it more on the quiet, as she didn't want to upset her friend, so the original girl got really jealous (when she found out four or five weeks later) and got what I would term "bat 'hit crazy", and completely devastated a circle of friends, as they ended up being pulled in opposite directions.
I have dated people, but it has always ended up going horribly wrong, at no real fault of my own. I probably have been limiting myself too much, that I agree, but I have expanded my horizons far more to those who at least interest me, even though they don't currently share my interests.
Divinus Arma
12-28-2010, 06:50
Yes.
a completely inoffensive name
12-28-2010, 06:55
Possibly.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.