I've honestly never understood that Anglican practice....Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
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?
Printable View
I've honestly never understood that Anglican practice....Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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:
The concept of marriage as a civil institution is an outdated concept.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...
I wouldn't have a civil union either.
I want no mention of my love life in the official records of my state.
what about the benefits?
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.
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.
What, you don't trust the state? Are you being a bad little commie? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Being an anarchist, no. Don't see how that's surprisinh though...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
So you're not actually an anarchist...
As far as this thread is concerned, yes, I am...
You're under no obligation whatsoever to remain single :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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:
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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?" Then girls I am interested have in the past, unfortunately been not-single (legitimitely).Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
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.
Yes.
Possibly.