Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 verygreeneyez
Joined: 3/15/2006
Msg: 376
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?Page 16 of 32    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)

Maybe in the world you live in. I've been asked to get married 3 times since becoming single 11 years ago. It wasn't me doing the asking (it was me declining, however.)

That's because men -generally- do the asking. That is part of the custom. However it is still by and large women (and those women's families) that put the pressure on men to do said asking. Your 3 instances don't disprove anything.

It disproves YOUR "theory" (term used loosely) that it's WOMEN that wish to get married. I'm a woman, I gave you PROOF that not ALL women are marriage-minded and as for your insinuation that me (woman) and my family (I'm assuming you meant my son and I together) someway covertly convinced some poor unsuspecting man to propose marriage to me is a crock!! (Oh, and let's keep in mind that I supposedly did this 3 times. I'm GOOD if that's the case....maybe I should bottle and sell whatever it is I did, many women might just want some of what it was since I did it so well. LMFAO ~ really now...how silly!!) :33:

You are single, 27, never married and no children. No wonder you don't see two sides because in the world you inhabit? There is ONLY your side. Maybe come back in 5-10 years and let us know if you are still beating and burying the "it's the woman who promotes marriage" horse. (Maybe life experiences won't change your mind, or maybe **heaven forbid** life experience will sour you more and more, regardless? It's no wonder you don't "get it" because you've never been in a position of WANTING to marry someone.) If you are worried about divorce rates, don't get married. If you are worried about your assets? Don't hire Bernie Madoff to protect your assets (yeah, I know, crazy that he wasn't married to ALL those people he screwed) and do not ever, ever, ever think of having a child(ren) with someone because you will find yourself in unchartered territory and I have a feeling, you'd be quite uncomfortable there. As I said early one: some people should NOT even entertain the thought of any type of legal union with another. Maybe you are one of those people. And that's perfectly acceptable. To keep droning on that it's women who wish to get married? Simple lack of experience/knowledge. I think the techinical term "ignorance" fits well with this theory. JMO
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 377
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/7/2011 1:48:42 PM

^^^^There are those types of pressures experienced by both genders when married and legally entangled that will cause a person to make decisions under pressure that aren't experienced prior to marriage. The signing or otherwise of a pre-nuptual would indicate to me that there isn't the same type of ability to pressure one. At that point they still have the option to walk away easier from the relationship if they feel they are being pressured to make a decision that goes against their better judgement.

Agreed that both genders put the other under pressure to do things they might not rather do or might not be in their best interests, often in the name of "love". I think that the emotional component of that pressure is a significant factor, regardless of whether or not legal entanglements exist. If a couple has gotten to the point of considering marriage, there is a certainly pressure to concede things that may not be in someone's best interests. It's not that insisting on a pre-nup is unreasonable; in fact, it's probably a good idea for anyone who has significant assets or who have children from previous relationships. I understand the difference you are referring to, I just think it is less of a consideration than the willingness and ability of some people to manipulate others to get their way.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 378
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/7/2011 2:15:24 PM

It's nice for everyone to have their freedom, but it is inherent in humans to pair up. Be it heterosexual, or gay. Remember Noah, and the ark. Everyone wants to have someone they can trust, love, share, spend time with.....

Absolutely! Marriage as we're (sorta) familiar with may well be on the way out, but something that allows that particular intimate connection will certainly take its place.

We are all just making it harder on each other.

I think some of us are making it harder on ourselves, by remembering and reacting to the negative, and letting the positive fall by the wayside. I think my dog is an example of this - he's fearful by nature, and so he's always on the lookout for "danger". Once, in all the months I've had him, somebody put up a patio umbrella while he was walking by and this frightened him. We walk by that area an average of twice per say, and he's had ONE bad experience. Nonetheless, he's always extra-alert and watches carefully to make sure there are no patio umbrellas in sight: in his mind, he's being perfectly reasonable - that is the dreaded "patio umbrella" area, and he'd better be extra-careful. No amount of non-scary experience, or lack of fear by me or his best-dog-friend is going to change his mind. Sometimes, I think people are like that too.

The thing today is because of all the things, and games the men did to the women many years ago.... The women are now playing those same games with the men. Because they can. They are independent, and really don't need to rely on a man.

I don't think this is a tit-for-tat kind of thing, really. There have been inequities, and there continue to be inequities; the changes are slow, but they are coming. Even though my personal experience has men behaving like jerks and morons much more than women, I see (and read) many examples of men and women both behaving well and with consideration towards each other. I prefer take that as my set point of where society is, rather than the worst of what I see.

See the GAME continues on. And when you stop playing the GAME, does that make us losers, or winners? Does anyone have the answer to this?

I think more people than it might appear from POF forums have stopped (or never started) "playing the game". But again, those are the people that don't make headlines, who come to agreements that don't require thousands in lawyer fees and no court time, who don't use custody to beat up the other parent. Those (and their children) are the winners, imo.
 RazzleRoadRunner
Joined: 4/13/2007
Msg: 379
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/7/2011 2:28:33 PM

I think the word you were looking for was shtupping.


I think your most likely correct...........it was derived from the English language word, "stupid" and for a bloody good reason too.


Why is the freedom to have a pre nup not included in this wonderful F.R.E.E.D.O.M. you speak of?


So you want a pre nup along with your nuptuals.......but the pre-nup that you speak of only protects your money which is a tangible asset. People get married for all kinds of stupid reasons and some to most people ARE NOT jointly and collectively in love with each other, when it comes time for the nuptuals as follows:

-the sex feels good and I like you for making me happy down south.
-he/she has a lot of money that can provide us with a good standard of living, when it comes to material assets.
-marriage will provide me with an escape plan from my idiot parents and immediate family, temporarily.
-he/she helps me resolve all my emotional problems and they make ME feel good about MYself.
-he/she is just plain "hot" and everybody will be envious of ME, if I marry this person.
-I could handle gazing at his/her handsome/pretty face for the rest of my days.
-he/she could jump start my career.......so that I become more wealty in my own right.
and the freaking list goes on.

But what about a survival pre-nup that outlines the path of your lives together and ensures each other's happiness and success within the relationship and within your social standing of your immediate families. A life plan is just as important....keeping in mind that life can be unpredictable at times, so you need another meeting of the minds to ensure your successful happines with each other in your marriage, if that is what you choose. Your continued marital happiness is your success...........and you gain your freedom as a unit or a coupled unit.


In a technological and egalitarian structure a public/political bond has little purpose. But an emotional one, such as commitment, has great value. Priceless.


The promise to love each other in spite of all the crap that life throws your way individually and/or as a couple is your commitment and is an emotional commitment between a couple that is Priceless and worth more than anyone's gold or currency. It is the LOVE BOND that keeps a couple joined at the hip or rib..........depending on whether you like hips or ribs.
 x_file
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 380
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/7/2011 4:14:54 PM

x-file
go argue with the legislative bodies that passed the law and the judges who enforce them-tell THEM they pulled it out of thin air.


How typical of you to tell me what to do! Any other requests, mom?

I get it, you divert to tangents and personal attacks when you are corned. You have no skill to debate, defend or validate much of what you say. You are a broken record.



In fact, I find there isn't the complacency that sets in and the "taking for granted" as can be experienced when you live with your partner, married or otherwise.


Absolutely. Even family members occasionally take other family members for granted.

But when either of the two people in a relationship is free to walk out, as it is during dating, and friendships, the two people tend to be nicer to each other. Certain boundaries are not crossed, certain things are not said, and if it looks like things won't work out, one or both people simply walk away as easy as they got together. Occasionally it gets a bit more complex than that, but for the most parts, that's the dynamic.

This simple beautiful dynamic is lost in marriage. Once there is a legal safety net, one or both people tend to become worse to each other over time. I'm yet to hear anyone swear on a date, yet in a marriage, that is a common occurrence.

Not to mention that if there is a way to exploit or hurt one party when things go sour in a relationship, like marriage allows for, things become really ugly.



We're very focused on each other when we're together and focused on our other pursuits when we're not (even if it's relaxing - no "expectations" from someone else that you "should" be doing something they figure you should be doing, including financially).


Right on! This is what an "individual" ought to do. That is what relationships ought to be - nothing less, nothing more. This is precisely why marriage is inferior, corrupt, and evil.

This is exactly the dynamic between good friends. We get together to enjoy each others company, to have few laughs, few drinks, and go about our own business. No further entanglements, no contracts, no bullshit, no unnecessary complications.

Yet most women when presented with this type of relationship are simply not interested... they want marriage.

Help me out, given this dynamic creates the least amount of problems between men and women, why isn't it the standard? What the heck is wrong with people?

If kids are involved, only a slight modification is needed... which you already outlined earlier.



I see more and more people my age post-divorce/death of a spouse opting for this type of relationship.


Of course!!! Any wise person would follow this route.

This type of relationship transcends most bullshit.... and older people really don't want to deal with bullshit. It makes perfect sense. They are not after money, not after status, not after security, or stuff, but the mere pleasure of socializing, for company... to fulfill the part of our nature we most cherish.

Marriage ruins everything!


I've also seen many people who are married or living together who love the fact that they are. As I've said before in these forums, if everyone was designed to live their life the same exact way, we'd all be living in cookie cutter houses, driving the exact same car, having the same number of children, wearing the same clothes, etc.


This is the part I disagree with.

The relationship you just described is based on principles which can be applied to any relationship, no matter how different it is... including marriage. You can live your life which ever you want even if you bind yourself by those principles.

Apply the principles to marriage, and you will see a drastic improvement between men and women. You might see once again men and women get along just fine.

Make policies based on those principles and you will see the golden age once again.
 RazzleRoadRunner
Joined: 4/13/2007
Msg: 381
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/7/2011 5:05:53 PM
A very popular statement that has been repeated over and over again throughout history is that......."Love is Blind," but whoever phrased it didn't complete the whole statement.

Love will blind you if you or your partner choose to marry for any other reason(s) other than LOVE. If you and your partner let the love between you erode away, due to all the stresses and curve-balls that life throws your way........then, they got divorce to end the bond for which love no longer exists.

Well, I got to meet Mr RoadRunner at our store, "Acme Products" and were gonna take an inventory count today. That stupid "Wylie Coyote" doesn't know we own the store together, but he keeps buying all our products and giving us his gold nuggets. Of course everyone knows that "Acme Products" are guaranteed to fail every time. What a schmuck that coyote is
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 382
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/7/2011 6:11:14 PM
^^^^^Well stated, as usual Junkyard!


This is the part I disagree with.

The relationship you just described is based on principles which can be applied to any relationship, no matter how different it is... including marriage. You can live your life which ever you want even if you bind yourself by those principles.

Apply the principles to marriage, and you will see a drastic improvement between men and women. You might see once again men and women get along just fine.

Make policies based on those principles and you will see the golden age once again.


Well that's just my point though. Those principles have been applied in the legal marriages that I've seen work well and the individuals love being in. They give each other space, have their own identities instead of being glued at the hip to the point you can't tell where one person ends and the other person starts, they tend to have their own bank accounts, they don't presume to tell their spouse what to do, and instead, if they want something done on a time frame of their own choosing they do it themselves or arrange for someone else to do it instead of taking on rolls of boss and underling, they make special time for each other, hold hands and show other public displays of affection, and plenty of sex, they don't have to ask "permission" for the smallest thing, etc. In other words, they treat their partner with respect and they get it in return. In most marriages or common law relationships that don't work, it seems some form of "ownership" takes place which causes an erosion of the relationship and creates resentment, disrespect and a downhill spiral that leads to divorce. That's the point where the legalities of marriage get either messy or fair, depending on the individuals involved. For those of us who choose to not live together but have a committed, loving relationship, we just happen to appreciate a little more space on a daily basis.
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 383
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/7/2011 7:08:00 PM
Now we are getting some good posts here. Each couple should be able to decide how their relationship should be.

Each person should be able to share their thoughts without being vilified and have their words twisted.

This is much better than what we did have here maybe now ideas can be exchanged and lessons can be learned.

Again if we as people would go back to true life time commitment the attorney's would be hunting work.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 384
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/7/2011 8:10:12 PM
while I don't like to go back several pages and revisit a post...while I was away doing other things I realized what it was that bothered me about this...



What was fair about her keeping a 100k life insurance policy on me for a year after we divorced telling her agent when she quit paying it......Well I guess he's not going to do what her first husband did. (he shot himself she received a large insurance pay out on that.

OK, here's my question...was the 1st husbands death RULED to be suicide by the medical examiner/coroner? Or was it ruled an ACCIDENT of some sort. Because if it was ruled to be suicide, most life insurance policies I've ever heard of WILL NOT pay out on a suicide. This story is not hanging together...not particularly suggesting that the poster himself is making an inaccurate report, perhaps someone was not truthful with him?


I get it, you divert to tangents and personal attacks when you are corned
let me assure you sir, I am neither 'corned" (as in "corned beef", I presume) or cornERed. I posted some excerpts of OVERVIEWS from available to the public websites dealing with divorce,simply to establish that I personally was not making up stuff out of thin air. No, you do NOT "get it"-you do not even approach being in the same time zone as "getting it".
My comment about arguing the issues with the legislative bodies that passed the law,while inspired by your rageful spew, also, since this is an open forum,was offered as a suggestion to other people who honestly believe, (and not just because their own d*ck got caught in the wringer), that the divorce courts are biased /unjust, that they actually get a group together and go rant at the people who write, pass,amend and repeal laws. Neither I or anyone else on this forum-insofar as I know, is a divorce court judge,a legislator or legislators' aide. Do you reckon President Obama checks out the PoF forums to find out what is troubling people?


This is precisely why marriage is inferior, corrupt, and evil.

Of course it is when at least one of the participants is inferior, corrupt and evil.


This is exactly the dynamic between good friends. We get together to enjoy each others company, to have few laughs, few drinks, and go about our own business. No further entanglements, no contracts, no bullshit, no unnecessary complications.
Are you having sex with these good friends?


Yet most women when presented with this type of relationship are simply not interested... they want marriage.

there are several women on this very thread who have said they are in, or looking for,LTRs that are not marriage or psuedo-marriage. I'm one of them. Granted,the women saying this are mature women...with women of your own age group,it's entirely possible that their focus is on marriage or cohabitation.


Marriage ruins everything!
for some people it does, for others it doesn't.


Love will blind you if you or your partner choose to marry for any other reason(s) other than LOVE. If you and your partner let the love between you erode away, due to all the stresses and curve-balls that life throws your way........then, they got divorce to end the bond for which love no longer exists.

And this DOES happen a lot...whether it does because the stresses were huge, or the love was not sound to begin with, who can say?


Women maybe are indoctrinated with the myth they must marry or have a man in their life.Magazines etc are all about who is dating who or who is sadly alone lol.Like you are failure as a woman if you are not married or partnered up.Like its a stigma to be single.
I suspect that PEOPLE are indoctrinated with this myth, but that it is more so for women. Yes, I think there IS quite a social pressure on women to marry/have a male SO.


In most marriages or common law relationships that don't work, it seems some form of "ownership" takes place which causes an erosion of the relationship and creates resentment, disrespect and a downhill spiral that leads to divorce. That's the point where the legalities of marriage get either messy or fair, depending on the individuals involved. For those of us who choose to not live together but have a committed, loving relationship, we just happen to appreciate a little more space on a daily basis.

I believe that this is pretty accurate.while we did not follow the conditions that you described to the letter, my late DH and I were very much 2 individuals who chose to be together, and to formalize that decision. It was a PARTNERSHIP. Was it perfect? Of course not-2 or more human beings living together under the same roof as a couple/family, are going to sometimes come to cross-purposes with one another. But it worked and we were happy.


Each person should be able to share their thoughts without being vilified and have their words twisted.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but my intent was NOT to vilify anybody or twist anybody's words,simply to point out that being OVER-focused on protecting oneself from something that never did happen anyway, could be an indication that deeper self-study/self-reflection is needed.Perhaps your tendency to be defensive interfered with your perception of my observations.
Or when someone rages against an entity,a social construct, laws and procedures in a manner that one can easily envision them as red-faced,wild-eyed and foaming at the mouth-that they should control their rage and channel it where it will do some good.
If people want marriage to be abolished, or divorce to be abolished or changed, then take your anger to the entities and agencies that have caused the emotional and spiritual bond of marriage to be tied to legal and financial considerations. If you want no-fault divorce to be repealed,whatever...take your concerns and arguments to the places where that ball might be started rolling.


However my friends and I have a great time when together. They would never brand me as angry.

and mine would utterly refuse to believe that I am myopic or a misandrist-and those are friends of BOTH genders,btw.





You only judge me by my stance of marriage.
I don't judge you and it's not your stance on marriage-pfft, as fearful as you are of whatever it is you REALLY are fearful,I find the fact that you would even CONSIDER marrying again,to be inconsistent and illogical.


Here is some sage advice....May judgement be meted out to you in equal measure of Judgement meted by you.

so you are following me in other forums,because your "sage advice" is lifted from one of my posts to another thread...you simply substituted the word "judgement" for "compassion".
oh, and by the way, remember that the traditional wedding vows for a true life time committment have a passage in them, that both bride and groom avow..." with all my worldly goods I thee endow". How does that track with all your talk about prenups that have to be re-signed every year, or divorce is "automatic"??
How come, if I'm so myopic, I have no trouble seeing that your logic doesn't track?
Cindy O
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 385
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/7/2011 8:41:52 PM

OK, here's my question...was the 1st husbands death RULED to be suicide by the medical examiner/coroner? Or was it ruled an ACCIDENT of some sort. Because if it was ruled to be suicide, most life insurance policies I've ever heard of WILL NOT pay out on a suicide.
This story is not hanging together...not particularly suggesting that the poster himself is making an inaccurate report, perhaps someone was not truthful with him?


Check fedral law if the policy is over 2 years old they have to pay in the event of suicide!
You don't know everything as a matter of fact the facts you post normally are wrong!


Federal law states that an
insurance company must pay off in the event of a suicide if they
insured has had the policy for 2 years. (Except in Colorado where
it's 1 year). If the insured commits suicide before the time period,
their premiums are to be returned to the family.


Seems again you post before know what you are speaking of!


Are you having sex with these good friends?


Some of them I am is there a problem with that for you? Any other area of my personal life you want details on? JEEEZZZZ!


I cannot speak for anyone else, but my intent was NOT to vilify anybody or twist anybody's words,simply to point out that being OVER-focused on protecting oneself from something that never did happen anyway, could be an indication that deeper self-study/self-reflection is needed.


And I have repeatedly told you I am not angry or bitter or over focused for that matter I have made a decision not to marry w/o a pre nup simple as that.
I have the right to voice my opinion. Or do you revoke my right of free speech?


Or when someone rages against an entity,a social construct, laws and procedures in a manner that one can easily envision them as red-faced,wild-eyed and foaming at the mouth-that they should control their rage and channel it where it will do some good.


Trust me I have never done any of these things when replying on this forum....I have bought fell over laughing at some of the "facts" some post here.....I have even had to quit typing because of laughter when I find the "facts" come mostly from misandrist sites.


If people want marriage to be abolished, or divorce to be abolished or changed, then take your anger to the entities and agencies that have caused the emotional and spiritual bond of marriage to be tied to legal and financial considerations. If you want no-fault divorce to be repealed,whatever...take your concerns and arguments to the places where that ball might be started rolling.


And I have told you we are doing that here one person at a time the American revolution didn't start over night but grew from conversation to conversation.

I can tell you want to stop the ball from rolling but sorry I will continue to speak my mind and post truth.


and mine would utterly refuse to believe that I am myopic or a misandrist.
Not if they read some of your post here.


I don't judge you and it's not your stance on marriage-pfft, as fearful as you are of whatever it is you REALLY are fearful,I find the fact that you would even CONSIDER marrying again,to be inconsistent and illogical.


Again I have no plans to but if the right woman comes along I would consider it. That in itself kinda blows your fearful commitment out of the water.


so you are following me in other forums,because your "sage advice" is lifted from one of my posts to another thread...you simply substituted the word "judgement" for "compassion".
oh, and by the way, remember that the traditional wedding vows for a true life time committent have a passage in them, that both bride and groom avow..."all my worldly goods I thee endow". How does that track with all your talk about prenups that have to be re-signed every year, or divorce is "automatic"??
How come, if I'm so myopic, I have no trouble seeing that your logic doesn't track?


Hummm so we have trouble practicing what we preach huh?

If the mindset for a life long commitment was as strong today as back then I would have no trouble say and meaning those words. However when a set of laws allows one to walk away with half the assets for no other reason that they want to.
I can't see the logic in that.

So my logic does track you just don't like it!

We were beginning to get some really helpful post when you brought this bickering back up how about growing up and let this thread get back on track!

Even triple had some really good pearls of wisdom......Try being more like her constructive instead of bitter!
 mysterywoman999
Joined: 3/13/2011
Msg: 386
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/7/2011 8:59:16 PM

But when either of the two people in a relationship is free to walk out, as it is during dating, and friendships, the two people tend to be nicer to each other.


Why compare marriage to dating or friendship? In dating or friendship prior to marriage OR cohab, I guess people are nicer to one another because there is simply less to fight about--no mingling of assets, or family time, or household chores. I seriously doubt that people who shack up as opposed to marry are "nicer to each other". Have you any evidence for this assertion?



Certain boundaries are not crossed, certain things are not said, and if it looks like things won't work out, one or both people simply walk away as easy as they got together.


Just because it is not as "easy" to walk away from marriage, doesn't mean people should never marry. It's a gamble, as much in this life is a gamble.
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 387
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/7/2011 9:10:40 PM

Just because it is not as "easy" to walk away from marriage, doesn't mean people should never marry. It's a gamble, as much in this life is a gamble.


Yes it is a gamble much like Vegas where the odds favor the house....Divorce laws favor the female gender.

This is not bashing the gender it is just fact. When the 50% split is removed from the equation the divorce rate drops for that jurisdiction.

Marriage would be much more palatable if it was truly equal.

So it is the lopsided laws that allow it to be easy to walk away from.

There is a saying about male players.....Don't hate the player hate the game.......I see this as good advice on marriage.

Some do play the game and one should be able to have some protection against this game playing.....don't you think?
 mysterywoman999
Joined: 3/13/2011
Msg: 388
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/7/2011 10:00:31 PM

Yes it is a gamble much like Vegas where the odds favor the house....Divorce laws favor the female gender.


Divorce is usually costly and painful for both parties. You can't really speak of divorce laws generally as they vary so much from place to place. Where I live men are getting 50-50 custody of kids regularly, and the law calls for marital assets and debts to be split equally. Therefore both genders are being treated exactly the same under the law.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 389
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/7/2011 10:12:20 PM

Check fedral law if the policy is over 2 years old they have to pay in the event of suicide!
You don't know everything as a matter of fact the facts you post normally are wrong!

If you will read what I said CAREFULLY, I said "MOST life insurance policies I EVER HEARD OF..." I did not claim any FACT. I made an observation regarding what I had heard of.
As far as 'facts I normally post"...again, if your reading comprehension worked right, you would realize that often my posts are simple opinions, observations,things I have experienced, witnessed or heard about. I do not claim them to be facts, for the most part. Earlier today I posted exerpts from a couple of websites giving general information and an overview of divorce, simply to establish that my comments and observations were not lies, fabrications or something I just made up out of thin air. I DO have a right to defend myself when a poster accuses me of making shit up,and I will make use of that right.

Some of them I am is there a problem with that for you? Any other area of my personal life you want details on? JEEEZZZZ!

This comment was not directed to you OR your posts and it was meant to be facetious.
Why do you think every post I make is just all about YOU? I'm not interested in frightened and/or angry men. I thought that pointing out how YOU come across-in MY OPINION, with your constant harping on "legal protection" might actually give you some food for thought.
I really don't care whom or what you are having sex with...that post was directed in response to another post authored by a different participant.

Trust me I have never done any of these things when replying on this forum....I have bought fell over laughing at some of the "facts" some post here.....I have even had to quit typing because of laughter when I find the "facts" come mostly from misandrist sites.

Again, that message was not about you or directed to you.

So my logic does track you just don't like it!

that would be your opinion.
And for the record, while some of my comments, responses, observations were inspired by or directed to you, most of what I post on ANY topic is meant for all participants to read, consider, and do with what they like.
I came back to this thread-one, because your allegations about your ex and her life-insurance deal had piqued my curiousity. I think a LOT of people have a general impression that suicide nullifies a life insurance policy. I don't think that a lot of folks spend time looking up Federal laws. But you are right...I should have spent a couple of hours looking it up, rather than 2 minutes asking YOU. Actually, what I was aiming at is that maybe your ex was not being truthful with you and I DID honestly wonder if his death was ruled as an accident( people do get killed by their own guns),rather than just go on your insinuation that your ex's ex killed himself.
I can only presume that you want to label me as 'bitter' because some of my opinions and observations DO get under your skin and you are trying desperately to invalidate them.
Please, by all means, continue going to every possible topic and bringing up your "legal protections" and your "ironclad, "must be re-signed every year or divorce is automatic"
over and over again. Trust me, anybody who has been in these forums over 5 minutes GETS your message. I thought that I could diplomatically suggest that you might want to get a couple of NEW soapboxes-but I see now that you are pretty much stuck where you are emotionally.
ON TOPIC...
Mostly the reasons for getting legally married is to BENEFIT one another and provide a stable framework to raise children in.
This hasn't been touched on very much, but there still is no uniform ruling about insurance benefits for UNmarried couples, there are matters of titled vehicles being under "full rights to survivor" should the spouse who is named on the title pass away...I had always been told that having 2 peoples' names(yes even spouses) on the title to particularly motor vehicles, would give greater exposure to liability in a lawsuit over damage,injury or death caused by that vehicle. I do not know that for a fact, it was just advice given to me by at least a couple of insurance agents and a certified financial planner. That may not be true in all states-but the advice that I and my spouse got-from professionals was to have vehicle titled in one name only and check the "full rights to survivor" box.
Yes, marriage is a lot to do with financial matters and obligations...but the examples I just gave indicate that sometimes there are POSITIVE finacial reasons.
And here's another biggie...there is no law requiring a hospital, doctor, or even other family members to listen to the wishes of an unmarried "significant other"-or give them ANY medical information in the event that one of the unmarried couple becomes badly injured or seriously ill. Some hospitals have become more compassionate about recognizing a life partner or significant other that is not officially married to the patient, but that is not a matter of law or public policy, insofar as I know. Other posters have mentioned sticky situations if the couple lives in a house owned by just one of them,should the owner of the house stop occupying it due to serious illness-or if the owner dies.
I REALIZE that all these things probably seem like concerns for "older people" but even young people get seriously injured, permanently incapacitated or die from accidents or sudden catastrophic illness...I'm sure most of us know at least one fairly young person who suffered a heart attack, stroke, aneurysm, and either became physically AND mentally incapacitated, or died. I suggest that ANYONE who proposes to live with a significant other in a home owned solely by that person, should check with an attorney about their rights in some of the situations I've mentioned.
Again, I neither promote or vilify marriage. And if all everyone wants to focus on is the possibility of losing some money or "stuff", that's fine. I just thought I would point out some solid reasons to do with illness or death of a "significant other", where a spouse has much more rights and protections under the law, that are NOT guaranteed to a live-in "significant other"-unless there is a fair amount of work put into written legal contingency plans. And even that may not guarantee a live-in SO coverage under their partners medical insurance benefits. Of course, if an uninsured SO becomes ill, one can always jut dump them at a charity hospital and walk away...
Whether some of the concerns that I have pointed out balance with the fears of financial devastation due to divorce, I'm sure I cannot say. I simply wanted to bring them into the discussion. If one's fear of divorce over-rides the fear of not being able to be at the SO's side in the event of serious illness or injury, of having NO SAY about medical decisions about the SO(if they are unable to speak for themselves) UNLESS an advanced care directive or medical power of attorney is in place, so be it.
Cindy O
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 390
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/7/2011 10:24:53 PM

Divorce is usually costly and painful for both parties. You can't really speak of divorce laws generally as they vary so much from place to place. Where I live men are getting 50-50 custody of kids regularly, and the law calls for marital assets and debts to be split equally. Therefore both genders are being treated exactly the same under the law.


Okay lets turn this into numbers.

Say the one makes 100k a year and the other makes 25k

I'm using these as they are close to what I had going.

Now they save some money and buy a nice house and the bills are easy to pay.

They divorce and it is split 50% down the middle the house is sold and it is split.

lets say between the house and money there was 400k to split.

each gets 200k only two years worth of earnings for one yet 8 years for the other.

So it is easy to see how the higher wage earner gets reamed.

Now even in joint custody one will get child support normally the mother.

So if the guy is the higher earner his income is reduced by 29% for one child off gross.

that is 29k a year.

I know 50/50 may seem logical at first but when you break it down it is the shaft for the higher earner.

In my case kids are not a consideration so it is just about assets. Why would I want to risk 50% of them to get married. I wouldn't I would marry with a pre nup that lets each keep the assets brought in and made during the marriage should it end.

It is only logical at this point in my life and I think anyone could benefit from it.

Lets say you marry a guy that makes more yet blows his money. You pay the house and 90% of the bills. You have a small saving account also.

He decides to bounce.....If there is no pre nup such as I discussed he could get 50% of the equity in the home and half your savings.

Seeing as he didn't pay a dime on the house and didn't save a dime of his money the only assets to split are the ones you worked for.

Truthfully would you deem it fair for him to get money from either?
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 391
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/7/2011 11:11:06 PM


If you will read what I said CAREFULLY, I said "MOST life insurance policies I EVER HEARD OF..." I did not claim any FACT. I made an observation regarding what I had heard of.
As far as 'facts I normally post"...again, if your reading comprehension worked right, you would realize that often my posts are simple opinions, observations,things I have experienced, witnessed or heard about. I do not claim them to be facts, for the most part. Earlier today I posted exerpts from a couple of websites giving general information and an overview of divorce, simply to establish that my comments and observations were not lies, fabrications or something I just made up out of thin air. I DO have a right to defend myself when a poster accuses me of making shit up,and I will make use of that right.


I didn't accuse you of making up anything I said you only post info that supports your myopic views and they are most of the time wrong.

The right thing to do is see if the truth is posted.


This comment was not directed to you OR your posts and it was meant to be facetious.
Why do you think every post I make is just all about YOU? I'm not interested in frightened and/or angry men. I thought that pointing out how YOU come across-in MY OPINION, with your constant harping on "legal protection" might actually give you some food for thought.
I really don't care whom or what you are having sex with...that post was directed in response to another post authored by a different participant.


Actually you quoted me directly so why would I think it wasn't to me?

In my post #414 I posted ......

So you have spent time with me interacted with me? I don't remember doing so. However my friends and I have a great time when together. They would never brand me as angry.

You only judge me by my stance of marriage.

Here is some sage advice....May judgement be meted out to you in equal measure of Judgement meted by you.


So you see you did directly quoted me not another author. Might want to keep whom you are quoting straight.


Again, that message was not about you or directed to you.


See above answer.


that would be your opinion.
And for the record, while some of my comments, responses, observations were inspired by or directed to you, most of what I post on ANY topic is meant for all participants to read, consider, and do with what they like.


And I am one of those participants.


I came back to this thread-one, because your allegations about your ex and her life-insurance deal had piqued my curiousity. I think a LOT of people have a general impression that suicide nullifies a life insurance policy. I don't think that a lot of folks spend time looking up Federal laws. But you are right...I should have spent a couple of hours looking it up, rather than 2 minutes asking YOU.


It took me less than a minute to find it through a Google search...If your search engine is taking hours I suggest you upgrade your internet connection.


I can only presume that you want to label me as 'bitter' because some of my opinions and observations DO get under your skin and you are trying desperately to invalidate them.


Nope I branded you bitter because when I expose your half truths and bad info you tend to post blather to white wash it.


Please, by all means, continue going to every possible topic and bringing up your "legal protections" and your "ironclad, "must be re-signed every year or divorce is automatic"
over and over again. Trust me, anybody who has been in these forums over 5 minutes GETS your message. I thought that I could diplomatically suggest that you might want to get a couple of NEW soapboxes-but I see now that you are pretty much stuck where you are emotionally


I post on topic there are many posts on other subjects I have made that never mention pre nups.


ON TOPIC...
Mostly the reasons for getting legally married is to BENEFIT one another and provide a stable framework to raise children in.
This hasn't been touched on very much, but there still is no uniform ruling about insurance benefits for UNmarried couples, there are matters of titled vehicles being under "full rights to survivor" should the spouse who is named on the title pass away...I had always been told that having 2 peoples' names(yes even spouses) on the title to particularly motor vehicles, would give greater exposure to liability in a lawsuit over damage,injury or death caused by that vehicle. I do not know that for a fact, it was just advice given to me by at least a couple of insurance agents and a certified financial planner. That may not be true in all states-but the advice that I and my spouse got-from professionals was to have vehicle titled in one name only and check the "full rights to survivor" box.
Yes, marriage is a lot to do with financial matters and obligations...but the examples I just gave indicate that sometimes there are POSITIVE finacial reasons.
And here's another biggie...there is no law requiring a hospital, doctor, or even other family members to listen to the wishes of an unmarried "significant other"-or give them ANY medical information in the event that one of the unmarried couple becomes badly injured or seriously ill. Some hospitals have become more compassionate about recognizing a life partner or significant other that is not officially married to the patient, but that is not a matter of law or public policy, insofar as I know. Other posters have mentioned sticky situations if the couple lives in a house owned by just one of them,should the owner of the house stop occupying it due to serious illness-or if the owner dies.
I REALIZE that all these things probably seem like concerns for "older people" but even young people get seriously injured, permanently incapacitated or die from accidents or sudden catastrophic illness...I'm sure most of us know at least one fairly young person who suffered a heart attack, stroke, aneurysm, and either became physically AND mentally incapacitated, or died. I suggest that ANYONE who proposes to live with a significant other in a home owned solely by that person, should check with an attorney about their rights in some of the situations I've mentioned.


You bring some very good points here and as, I have heard you complain about having the government so deep in our personal lives. Wouldn't it be prudent to set down and make a durable power of attorney for such matters? Married or unmarried it would do the same job. The same could be put into a pre nup to save having so many legal documents.


I just thought I would point out some solid reasons to do with illness or death of a "significant other", where a spouse has much more rights and protections under the law, that are NOT guaranteed to a live-in "significant other"-unless there is a fair amount of work put into written legal contingency plans.


My mother had a durable power of attorney drawn up with me as the holder after my father died. It covered not only medical but the business aspects as well. We were in the attorneys office for less than a hour. Not difficult at all.


And even that may not guarantee a live-in SO coverage under their partners medical insurance benefits. Of course, if an uninsured SO becomes ill, one can always jut dump them at a charity hospital and walk away...


Any one over 20 that doesn't have there own health insurance should have their head checked.

Personally I would never take on a lady with that kind of liability. If they haven't planed for that how many more liabilities do they have. These are questions you should ask way before considering marriage for sure. No matter how much you love them.


Whether some of the concerns that I have pointed out balance with the fears of financial devastation due to divorce, I'm sure I cannot say. I simply wanted to bring them into the discussion. If one's fear of divorce over-rides the fear of not being able to be at the SO's side in the event of serious illness or injury, of having NO SAY about medical decisions about the SO(if they are unable to speak for themselves) UNLESS an advanced care directive or medical power of attorney is in place, so be it.


These concerns are valid and on point. However wouldn't it be better to make the exact choices in a pre nup/power of attorney, than leave it to some cookie cutter government mandate?
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 392
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/7/2011 11:13:35 PM
Again-cited from an internet source...not something I made up!


The presumed division of marital assets and debts is a 50/50 split, but, unlike in community property states, a 50/50 split is not necessarily the ending point if the judge applies any of the following factors:

(a) The contribution to the marriage by each spouse, including contributions to the care and education of the children and services as homemaker.
(b) The economic circumstances of the parties.
(c) The duration of the marriage.
(d) Any interruption of personal careers or educational opportunities of either party.
(e) The contribution of one spouse to the personal career or educational opportunity of the other spouse.
(f) The desirability of retaining any asset, including an interest in a business, corporation, or professional practice, intact and free from any claim or interference by the other party.
(g) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition, enhancement, and production of income or the improvement of, or the incurring of liabilities to, both the marital assets and the nonmarital assets of the parties.
(h) The desirability of retaining the marital home as a residence for any dependent child of the marriage, or any other party, when it would be equitable to do so, it is in the best interest of the child or that party, and it is financially feasible for the parties to maintain the residence until the child is emancipated or until exclusive possession is otherwise terminated by a court of competent jurisdiction. In making this determination, the court shall first determine if it would be in the best interest of the dependent child to remain in the marital home; and, if not, whether other equities would be served by giving any other party exclusive use and possession of the marital home.
(i) The intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior to the filing of the petition.
(j) Any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.

from http://www.divorcelawtampabay.com/MaritalAssetsDebts.aspx
This would seem to be suggesting that except in true "community property " states, that an across-the-board 50/50 split might not be the case, that the factors listed in the excerpt could be and probably are, in many cases, used to adjust the split so that it was equitable and fair. This would cover unequal incomes, or the case of an improvident spouse squandering marital resources and assets.
Again, that information is excerpted from a divorce law website...it is not "facts", I "made up".
But by all means remain in your anxiety that marriage=spousal wrongdoing=divorce=somebody getting an "unfair gain".
Besides which,,,,I'm going to, for a specific moment here, speak directly to a posters specific stated divorce history-in those cases, there was an opportunity to avail yourself of a "fault" divorce, and an old adultery law still on the books ,or other spousal wrongdoing, to pretty much get the kids, the money and send the offending spouse packing with only what she came to the marriage with. In light of that, I have to ask, how can you be so sure that the judge is going to split everything right down the middle, like King Solomon was going to do with the contested baby. How would you know what might be looked at, weighed, considered, factored in by the presiding judge? Granted, you may be drawing conclusions from friends who reported reamings in divorce court...but were you a mouse in the corner of the courtroom to know exactly what took place?
I'm not going to claim that injustices-both perceived and real-don't occur in divorces; but the information from the divorcelawtampabay website seems to indicate that divsion of marital assets and liabilities is something that the judge considers in each individual case, not always a set-in-stone 50/50 split, except in "community property states". Of course, I have not instituted a research project or started an investigation to determine whether divorcelawtampabay might be a "misandrist site". It certainly gives all appearances of being an informational website put up by a law firm specializing in divorce.


This is exactly the dynamic between good friends. We get together to enjoy each others company, to have few laughs, few drinks, and go about our own business. No further entanglements, no contracts, no bullshit, no unnecessary complications.
Is the post I was responding to, made by x-file,mesg 425. Are you saying that you are x-file? I asked x-file if he had sex with these friends.
I don't need to be with someone in person to have interaction-what do you think these forums are if not interactions among PoF members. If my memory serves me correctly, real-life relationships have developed from forum interactions.




So you see you did directly quoted me not another author. Might want to keep whom you are quoting straight
I just established that I was quoting from and discussing x-files' post. You might want want to ask yourself why you come into these threads and presum that evey other posters comments are directed to you, or about YOUR situation, or your posts. Look up "egocentric".
So your answer to my question is something you looked up right that very minute on Google? You had to LOOK IT UP?


If your search engine is taking hours I suggest you upgrade your internet connection
I suggest you look up flamebaiting.


Nope I branded you bitter because when I expose your half truths and bad info you tend to post blather to white wash it.
I'm going to again suggest you look up flamebaiting.
One more thing-

Any one over 20 that doesn't have there own health insurance should have their head checked.

There are millions of smart, decent hardworking people who do not have it. I am not that unfortunate but I know a lot of good people who are. Look up snob.
I am not going to continue in this personal debate with you, I don't care to see the thread closed or pulled, or get a trip to banned camp.
You are now officially on "ignore".
Cindy O
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 393
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/8/2011 12:39:48 AM
Why compare marriage to dating or friendship? In dating or friendship prior to marriage OR cohab, I guess people are nicer to one another because there is simply less to fight about--no mingling of assets, or family time, or household chores.


While it might be assumed that the more variables there are, there is more to fight about, that flies in the face of the examples of married couples who do have all those variables but get along...as though they are dating or in a friendship...or in a committed, loving, non-cohab relationship. You only have to take a look at a very few of the threads where people are dating but fight like cats and dogs to see that it's not the variables that necessarily cause the fights, it's how people treat each other.

Some people seem to have a misconception of what a committed, non-cohab relationship is like. They assume it is just dating or friends with benefits. That couldn't be further from the truth. Although you are absolutely friends and you do have benefits, you are there for the person emotionally, physically, help with chores, discuss family matters and seek advice, vacation together, spend time with each other's families, provide financial assistance if required, and so on. If they are such opposites, does that mean that married couples or common law couples are enemies with no benefits? Wait, maybe you shouldn't answer that, because that seems to be the common complaint that leads to divorce and splits.

Realistically, or at least in my experience, more actual time is often spent with a person when you don't live with them. For those of you who have been married, picture the amount of time you actually spent together, focused on each other. In most cases, I'd wager to say it's not any more than when you were actively dating the individual and living separately and quite likely even less time - other aspects of your life take you away from each other such as work, children's after school activities if you have children, chores that have one person inside and the other outside or in opposite ends of the house, the man and woman spending time with their same sex friends, hobbies and interests that didn't include your spouse, etc. Outside of the initial romance that brings people to the stage of marriage, marriage itself is more a matter of convenience financially and physically for too many couples, rather than true compatibility, and that's the reason so many divorce, particularly those with marriages under 10 years. They have a romantic notion of what marriage entails, not a realistic knowledge of what it entails. For those who divorce after a lengthy period of time, it's often more a case of growing and changing - we're all a work in progress after all. That's obviously not a hard and fast rule because there are many who do spend a lifetime happily, legally married or living together without the contract of marriage, but statistics prove that it's not the majority.

Just thought I'd give my two cents about the misconceptions that non-cohab relationships are "just dating".
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 394
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/8/2011 5:08:33 AM

This is exactly the dynamic between good friends. We get together to enjoy each others company, to have few laughs, few drinks, and go about our own business. No further entanglements, no contracts, no bullshit, no unnecessary complications.
Is the post I was responding to, made by x-file,mesg 425. Are you saying that you are x-file? I asked x-file if he had sex with these friends.
I don't need to be with someone in person to have interaction-what do you think these forums are if not interactions among PoF members. If my memory serves me correctly, real-life relationships have developed from forum interactions.


Nope not claiming to be x-file.
You also directly quoted me in the same post//#430


This is you quoting me.

However my friends and I have a great time when together. They would never brand me as angry.
**************************************************************************
and mine would utterly refuse to believe that I am myopic or a misandrist-and those are friends of BOTH genders,btw.

^^^^^^^^^^^^This is your answer

So you established nothing again trying to white wash. You should really keep up with whom you're quoting. As everyone can see you quoted me, but try and discredit me by claiming you didn't.


So you see you did directly quoted me not another author. Might want to keep whom you are quoting straight
I just established that I was quoting from and discussing x-files' post. You might want want to ask yourself why you come into these threads and presum that evey other posters comments are directed to you, or about YOUR situation, or your posts. Look up "egocentric".
So your answer to my question is something you looked up right that very minute on Google? You had to LOOK IT UP?


Don't need to just showed you did directly quote me.

No I knew the law I looked it up to post it for you to read. However me being able to look it up so quickly shows how easy it is to be sure the info one posts here is correct.


I am not going to continue in this personal debate with you, I don't care to see the thread closed or pulled, or get a trip to banned camp.
You are now officially on "ignore"


It is not my intention to do any of that either.Ignore is fine by me, it will free up the thread to be on topic as I won't have to keep exposing the erroneous information and misquotes.

Back to the topic...

Lets take each one of the considerations to the 50/50 split posted.


The presumed division of marital assets and debts is a 50/50 split, but, unlike in community property states, a 50/50 split is not necessarily the ending point if the judge applies any of the following factors:



(a) The contribution to the marriage by each spouse, including contributions to the care and education of the children and services as homemaker.


This consideration would mostly benefit the female as currently the percentage of male homemakers is very low.


(b) The economic circumstances of the parties.


This could be a help to either but it is used to help the lower wage earner. Seeing as currently only 30% of women make more than their husbands it is a aid to the female.


(c) The duration of the marriage.


This can go either way if the marriage is very short a few months then it would help the higher earner if it is long enough to meet the states standard of equal division it would help the lower earner. (some states this is as little as 18 months) That cries out for change. Some one with no assets or income can marry and 18 months later they can do no fault and get 50% of their assets.


(d) Any interruption of personal careers or educational opportunities of either party.

This would most likely be an extension of (a) the mother becomes a housewife so she is limited in these fields.


(e) The contribution of one spouse to the personal career or educational opportunity of the other spouse.


This is one that kills me the one who suffers from (d) is now doubled compensated.


(f) The desirability of retaining any asset, including an interest in a business, corporation, or professional practice, intact and free from any claim or interference by the other party.


This would surely help the lower wage earner as to keep a business that only one has built they have to buy out the other that has not done anything to build said business. ie the higher wage earner may have to give up equity in their house to keep their business.


(h) The desirability of retaining the marital home as a residence for any dependent child of the marriage, or any other party, when it would be equitable to do so, it is in the best interest of the child or that party, and it is financially feasible for the parties to maintain the residence until the child is emancipated or until exclusive possession is otherwise terminated by a court of competent jurisdiction. In making this determination, the court shall first determine if it would be in the best interest of the dependent child to remain in the marital home; and, if not, whether other equities would be served by giving any other party exclusive use and possession of the marital home.


This again helps the lower wage earner allowing them to keep an asset that could be sold and split at the time of the divorce.


(i) The intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior to the filing of the petition.
(j) Any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.


Both of these are to the benefit of the lower wage earner.

To sum it up every one of these would most likely be used to get the lower wage earner more than 50% of the assets not the other way around.

Seeing as only 30% of women make more than men it helps the female gender more so than men.

Backing my claim that the divorce laws are slanted in the lower/no wage earners favor.

Thanks for this great info it shows how lopsided the current laws. And why pre nups and other protection measures are needed.

As junkyard dawg posted ......

Women years ago did not have the opportunities for education and careers they have now. They were dependent on men especially if they had children.So marriage was a way to attain security for a gender, female who were largely powerless in society and of lower status.
There were also a lot of traditions about a womans role in society and in the home.These hindered womens independence and autonomy.
However times have changed and as women we know we have opportunities to educate ourselves, be independent of men and always be able to support ourselves and our children if we have them.


The current laws should be adjusted to reflect the changes in the social/economics of today that Junkyard Dawg so eloquently stated above.
 mysterywoman999
Joined: 3/13/2011
Msg: 395
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/8/2011 8:08:18 AM

They divorce and it is split 50% down the middle the house is sold and it is split.

lets say between the house and money there was 400k to split.

each gets 200k only two years worth of earnings for one yet 8 years for the other.


In the event of a divorce, both parties are equally entitled to retain an equal share of the "marital home". A "marital home", as opposed to a "house" is far more than a real estate investment, or a way to amass "earnings". A lot more goes into making a home than just money, and over a lengthy marriage, it would be very difficult to track who contributed what, how much, and when. The only fair thing to do is to consider that the place where two people lived their married lives together belongs to both parties equally. If a high earner is afraid of forfeiting half of an expensive "house" she/he has the option of buying a more modest home. I would not recommend putting the bulk of one's net worth in real estate, and certainly into a home that one owns jointly.


So it is easy to see how the higher wage earner gets reamed.


So the law "reams" the higher wage earner by your logic. So the law favours low wage earners of either gender.


Now even in joint custody one will get child support normally the mother.

So if the guy is the higher earner his income is reduced by 29% for one child off gross.

that is 29k a year.


Again, you appear to be speaking of specific laws of a specific place, so I'll do that, too. Where I live, there can be joint legal custody of children, but the children may live primarily with one parent. In that case the NCP pays CS to the custodial parent, regardless of the gender of the parent. There is also joint legal and physical custody, which means the children actually reside with both parents equally. If that is the case, the lower wage earner may receive CS from the higher wage earner. My friend has joint legal custody of her two kids, but she earns about thirty thousand dollars a year more than her ex. She pays CS to him, not based on her entire income, but just on the thirty thousand dollar difference. It isn't anywhere near $29000. It's more like $7000.00 I fail to see how that law is biased in favour of women.
 RazzleRoadRunner
Joined: 4/13/2007
Msg: 396
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/8/2011 9:02:46 AM
Here are some of my reasons for never wanting to participate in the institution of marriage and/or divorce:

-even though men and women cheat on each other for the same reasons....men are more likely to cheat sexually and emotionally. He/she wants to play the "social games of other men and women" and quite frankly..........who wants to risk disease from a cheating mate or worse yet, paying the the costs for another child by another man or woman.
-when women are pregnant and/or are overly busy with the children of the marriage, men are more likely to cheat during this faze of the relationship because some to most men think it's not part of their responsibilities to assist with the day to day care and control of children. During a marriage, the raising children faze for a woman is the most critical time that she will require the support/physical help from her husband.
Women are more likely to cheat if there husbands are overly busy with their jobs outside of the home......so, if he is working more than 8 hours per day, the risk is higher.
-some to most men do not have the confidence in themselves that they can retain the interest of a woman, just by giving a woman their genuine love and devotion. Some to most men are not emotionally mature enough to cope with the emotional entanglement of marriage and/or children.
-some to most men do not know how to manage money or a household and think it's mostly the female's responsibility.
-lastly, I have no desire to become financially entangled with anyone. Trust is a precious thing and currently, I only trust members of my immediate family.

I have more reasons, but these are some that are at the "top of my long list."

Seize the day people............Enjoy!
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 397
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/8/2011 9:40:21 AM

I fail to see how that law is biased in favour of women.


This seems to be the only question so I'll answer it.

You are correct in the statement...
So the law "reams" the higher wage earner by your logic. So the law favours low wage earners of either gender.


Now seeing as only 30% of women earn more than men then the law at least 70% of the time favors women.

This is not bashing women. It is just fact.

Here a lady posted this she accepts the fact that the laws were written at a much different time and were made to take into account the women of those times were not wage earners.


Women years ago did not have the opportunities for education and careers they have now. They were dependent on men especially if they had children.So marriage was a way to attain security for a gender, female who were largely powerless in society and of lower status.
There were also a lot of traditions about a womans role in society and in the home.These hindered womens independence and autonomy.
However times have changed and as women we know we have opportunities to educate ourselves, be independent of men and always be able to support ourselves and our children if we have them.


I have nothing against women just the archaic laws that govern divorce.

Some of the 30% of women that make more are actively seeking to change those laws as well.


He got their second house, an investment property she had bought in Costa Rica, and a $96,000 annual alimony payment.

She got angry.

"It's so obscene," said Holly Chiancola, 52, a Gloucester, Mass. real estate agent who is fighting the terms of a divorce settlement ordered by a judge in 2006.

You used to hear about divorced men complaining that their ex-wives were unfairly cutting into their income. Now, as more women become primary breadwinners, the complaints increasingly come from them. The number of American men receiving alimony has climbed, from 7,000 in 1998 to 13,000 last year, according to U.S. Census Bureau data



Chiancola said she partly blames Massachusetts' "outdated" divorce laws for her predicament -- she is a supporter of the group Mass Alimony Reform -- but she's also plenty outraged at her husband.

"He went for the jugular, believe me," she said.

Aggressive pursuit of spousal support by men is becoming more common, some divorce lawyers say, as the stigma of asking for alimony fades.


See it is the lower wage earner that is favored the facts are that is mostly the woman.
Now that women are just starting to have to suffer these injustices they are trying to change the laws.

This is not a gender thing anymore and as the percentages of women earning more goes up you will see more and more outcry to change theses archaic laws.

I have no beef against women just the laws that were at one time needed. No fault just compounded the problem.

Keep no fault go to the European format. The couple wanting a no fault must agree on the division of assets. There is no standard 50/50 split . If they can't agree the wait time for the court to make the division is 3-7 years.

The divorce rate dropped sharply when this became law there. Taking a heavy burden off the judicial system.

Take the lopsided laws out and the advantage of being the lower wage earner goes away. So people then have more reason to marry and less to divorce.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 398
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/8/2011 9:40:34 AM
msg 439
this is precisely what I am speaking of as well-and I run into the same misperceptions that its "dating" or "FwB".
Isn't it interesting that one can suggest a perfectly logical way of getting around a potential problem-the concerns about being financially set back-for BOTH parties-if a marriage or cohabitation hits the rocks-and people will still downgrade it, miscall it,try to make it out as some kind of substandard framework to have sex in...well, chameleon, you've already GOT the picture. But,perhaps this will be food for thought to those who genuinely want to have both a SO and to not have to bog themselves down with a legal document the length of "War and Peace" written by the state Attorney General( OMG, what if the state AG is a females???) and needing a courtroom full of Philadelphia lawyers to interpret.

I do still want to suggest that non-cohabiting LTR couples take some steps to ensure that they have some verifiable standing in case one of them becomes medically and/or mentally incapacitated and unable to speak for themselves. Perhaps(anyone who wants to pursue this please research it in the jurisdiction{s} you reside in) being named executor or co-executor of one anothers' estate, power of attorney,etc. I would certainly think that such a step would allay mis-perception among other family and close associates about it being "just dating" or "FwB",plus giving the partners SOME say in what happens if the other one is unable to speak for themselves.

Still, despite the huge bias towards women that is continually being claimed in this thread, for young people who are building their lives and perhaps wish to be parents and have a family life,the emotional, spiritual, social, legal, and financial framework that is marriage, is the best way to go IMO. Is it perfect? oh HELL no. But in one simply civil ceremony, many matters that would otherwise require specific written agreements/contracts could be covered and the couple LEGALLY allowed to have each others' backs in a time of adversity without a bunch of separate documentation.

Hopefully, a couple who take on the estate of matrimony do have deep spiritual and emotional bonds. However, I don't believe anyone here participating in this forum doesn't grasp the concept that there are probably more potential strains on marriage, that the social disapproval of divorce has lost most of it's effectiveness, and that when "until death do you part" is now a lot longer time frame than it was when those words were first spoken. The divorce laws are a safety net to make sure that neither adult is compelled to remain in a marriage that has become untenable by law, and the matter of asset and liability division is part of that safety net for BOTH people and any children that might be involved.

It's a matter of simplicity, if you think about it...many issues that might arise in a non-marital family/household are covered in that ceremony and contract without having to have a filing cabinet full of contracts, agreements,contingency plans. If the marriage becomes untenable, the current divorce and asset/liability division procedures allow for dissolution of the marriage without one partner being able to coerce the marriage to continue by refusing to agree to divorce, or use fear of socio-economic destitution to coerce continuation of a marriage that has irretrievably broken down.

Marriage has become, not an institution where 2 adults are in a sponsorship/sponsored relationship,but an equal partnership, and as such, needs to have a plan in place to dissolve the partnership equitably should the need arise to do so.
Perhaps that is too simple, and this is MY interpretation, explanation, opinion. I don't claim any of it to be written-in-stone legal FACTS. It is simply MY answer, based on observation,experience, reading, media information and close witness to both sucessful and failed marriages. That was the question posed in the topic title, was it not? Perhaps the OP intended for it to become a diatribe against marriage and women, if so, there are parts of it that certainly must satisfy that attention.
Bottom line? There is no REASON to get legally married. If that level of committment frightens you, if you would rather have your money and "stuff" at your side when you pass on, do not get married.
OH, and let me put in a clarification to THAT observation. Getting married in and of itself may not guarantee a person unwavering emotional support on their deathbed,unfortunately people who have had a marriage failure, or a spouse pass away, may not find-or may not want another marriage or deeply committed relationship. Even with children, there is no guarantee that they will be there "at the end of the day".
Cindy O
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 399
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/8/2011 10:08:39 AM

Women years ago did not have the opportunities for education and careers they have now. They were dependent on men especially if they had children.So marriage was a way to attain security for a gender, female who were largely powerless in society and of lower status.
There were also a lot of traditions about a womans role in society and in the home.These hindered womens independence and autonomy.
However times have changed and as women we know we have opportunities to educate ourselves, be independent of men and always be able to support ourselves and our children if we have them.

I agree with much of what you say above, but also want to mention how many men there are who are angry about women's increasing autonomy and independence, saying that women have become careless and uncaring about family and that is why there are so many divorces. I'm sure you've seen read the rants of such men on these forums, as I have. It seems to me that the complaints of men would be pretty much solved if there were a return to the days when women were encouraged and expected to be financially dependent on the male. No worries about her leaving, thus no worries about alimony or child support.

be independent of men and always be able to support ourselves and our children if we have them.

I certainly believe that women should be able and willing to support themselves; I am not a supporter of alimony except under unusual circumstances. However, I do not think women should "expect" to bear the cost of raising children on their own. As long as a child has two living parents, that child is entitled to support from both parents. It is true that anyone, male or female, may end up a single parent through the death of the other parent, but I do not think it should be an expectation.

It seems to me that the way in which some men propose going about solving the problem of child support/alimony - withdrawing from the whole process, may work against them in the long run. As long as men and women believe that men are essential to the child-rearing process and that marriage (or some kind of stable couple-dom in which both contribute to the whole) is the best environment in which to raise children, then men have some leverage. If men withdraw from that, and if women come to understand that men are not needed and cannot be relied upon either for emotional or financial support, then what? What role would men play in society, as women become more able to support themselves and their children, become better educated, and begin to fill the power positions that men now fill? Could men become even more powerless than women were 100 years ago, viewed as little more than breeding stock, and chattels for women's pleasure and use? I don't know if such an extreme scenario would come about (I hope not!) but I really don't see men or women doing themselves any favors by focusing on how independent and self-sufficent they must become, and making the protection of assets of paramount importance.
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 400
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/8/2011 10:09:14 AM
In the event of a divorce, both parties are equally entitled to retain an equal share of the "marital home". A "marital home", as opposed to a "house" is far more than a real estate investment, or a way to amass "earnings". A lot more goes into making a home than just money, and over a lengthy marriage, it would be very difficult to track who contributed what, how much, and when. The only fair thing to do is to consider that the place where two people lived their married lives together belongs to both parties equally. If a high earner is afraid of forfeiting half of an expensive "house" she/he has the option of buying a more modest home. I would not recommend putting the bulk of one's net worth in real estate, and certainly into a home that one owns jointly.


Although I agree that it's difficult to determine who contributed what, how much, and when with respect to lengthy marriages, I would consider it unfair if a couple, upon marriage, moved into the home of one individual and a great deal had been invested in that home by the party originally owning it, had their name solely on the title, had owned it for a number of years (or not) and the couple decided to divorce within a short period as opposed to a lengthy period (I'm sure a determination of what constitutes a lengthy or short period of time could be legislated). It would be relatively easy to determine who owned the real estate prior to marriage or how much had been invested to that point. Concessions in such cases should be made, rather than a blanket 50/50 division of assets. Better yet, sell the home before marriage and move into a different one together where you've put both names on title and contributed equally to down payment and mortgage. If there's a disparity in income and amount to be paid for down payment and mortgage payments, it should calculated on percentages. If one or the other decides to pay more "just cuz" than what those percentages are calculated to be, that's their prerogative but it doesn't get factored into the original percentage agreement. There should be separate bank accounts and one joint for paying community bills, including the mortgage. Hmmm...this all sounds like something to be included in a prenup, doesn't it? If you have children, the prenup has to be changed by law to account for any further changes in income. We do our taxes every year and seem to come up with accountings - prenups could be done in much the same way, taking into consideration the changes that have occurred yearly.

I dunno, the more I think of it, the better it sounds to have all the financial/legal wranglings out of the way prior to marriage, rather than at the dissolution of one, much the same way as it makes sense to have a will in place before you die to avoid all the pitfalls associated with it.
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?