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
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 476
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?Page 20 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)

Another thing it seems as people think that back when people actually honored their vows all the men had mistresses.

Who said that, exactly? What I recall saying was that WHEN adultery happened, the marriage was more likely to survive because divorce was less acceptable. If a divorce happened, it would more likely be the MAN who initiated it because women had fewer options as a divorced woman. Nobody said "all men had mistreses".


Though a few may have it would be a small percentage.

According to Kinsey, about 60% of men and 30% of women. I suspect that the women's stats may have been under-reported; since the stat for men is still around 60% (and womens' is close), that seems reasonable enough.


About 1-2% now most seems to be okay with that to be a reason to hang the blame on an entire gender.

Do you have a source for that 1-2%? Other than some men's "we're so hard done by" website, I mean?


It found that 18% of the students had a blood type that could NOT have had with the blood types of their parents.

In other words 18% of the students fathers were not their mothers husbands.
Yes, that rate has remained consistent for decades; I've read some estimates as high as 30%. Nonetheless, it doesn't make sense that only 1 or 2% of married men cheat, but 30% or more of married women do. It seems pretty unlikely that one or two guys in any neighborhood are going round and shtupping all the wives.

In my opinion, the number of men and women who commit adultery probably hasn't changed much over the decades and has probably always been equal, but the way it's talked about and dealt with has changed.



Lets look at the percentages if 1-2% of cheating husbands

Let's see a credible source for that statistic.



Don't take this the wrong way dude, but me thinks I see a control freak.

Funny, I been thinking that very thing for about three pages now



The bitterness will kill ya. I let mine go 10 years ago, and I am a better person for it.

Yup, but its scary to let go of that control, I am still working on it. Good for you! :)
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 477
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/11/2011 1:36:10 PM

Who said that, exactly? What was said was that WHEN adultery happened, the marriage was more likely to survive because divorce was less acceptable. If a divorce happened, it would more likely be the MAN who initiated it because women had fewer options as a divorced woman. Nobody said "all men had mistreses".


Here it is...Message #369


Geez, now men are finally getting a taste of what it was like for women in the early 1930's, 40's, 50's and 60's. Remember your history when it was typical for a man to have a wife and children at home and a mistress in an apartment that he was paying for from the family bank account.


Now typical to means it was more common than not.
And while I believe that about the same percentage of the genders cheat I don't believe very many men even back then could afford to set a mistress up in an apartment with family funds as was proposed.

I believe the number of women having children from someone other than their husbands is a much higher percentage.


Which logically pokes holes in the "1-2%" you've claimed. If only 1-2% of men cheat, but upwards of 30% of women cheat, it means some men are very busy.


Never said only 1-2% of men cheated I know better than that. I said 1-2% could afford and pull off having a mistress in a apartment paid by family funds.

That was the accusation.

So maybe I am being misunderstood because people are not reading the posts close enough to comprehend what is actually being said.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 478
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/11/2011 1:55:14 PM

Don't care for milkshakes but I love my coffee,but I will fix it my self as I want it done correctly.


Don't take this the wrong way dude, but me thinks I see a control freak. The bitterness will kill ya. I let mine go 10 years ago, and I am a better person for it.

Ding ding ding-we have a WINNER!

Seriously-with no intent to antagonize-but so do I. Gotta call it like I see it.
The presumption that no-one else has the SLIGHTEST idea about having a contingency plan in case a marriage fails, the description of how( it sounds like to me) he pretty much ran the family,the household, the family leisure activities(that was related to HIS business and therefore another income stream,as well). Don't misunderstand me, there is nothing wrong with a couple or family having a hobby that contributes to its' upkeep,as long as it is a GENUINELY mutual decision. Not something that one person sets up and then ignores or shouts down any questions or objections.
Again, this is just my agreement with another poster-acknowledging an opinion similar to my own. It is not a claim of fact, a diagnosis, an accusation...just an observation that is shared with at least one other poster.

What this has to do with reasons to get legally married? Just a commentary on a common cause of marriage failure-when one feels OVER controlled and revolts or acts out. Something to watch out for when contemplating marriage or cohabitation that is going to involve intermingling of lives, possessions,assets.
Cindy O
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 479
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/12/2011 10:51:45 AM

I think I would take it a step further and say, 18% to 30% of men and women cheat on their wives/husbands or lovers. That is assuming that it takes 2 people to do the
mattress tango and since it does, I would be most likely correct in my assumption.


Actually the studies show about 45% of married people cheat regardless of gender.

The assumption you made is incorrect as married people don't always cheat with other married people.

If one is married and one not then the only one to effect the stats would be the married one.

You know what they say about assuming.
 x_file
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 480
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/12/2011 2:49:17 PM

ladyc4:
No, you do NOT "get it"-you do not even approach being in the same time zone as "getting it".


Talk is cheap, and yours is really cheap, downright pathetic.

Lets review:



ladyc4:
The 50% rule reflects the concept that the married couple acquire assets by TEAMWORK.


I replied with a counter example which, at the very least, challenges the claim you made regardless if it is a fact from a law book, some other source, or your own opinion:



x_file:
Clearly a company earns its money through the many employes it has, including the guy sweeping the floors, but yet the CEO gets paid MORE.

A clear example of TEAMWORK, but not 50/50 profit split.


In your post following mine, you did not respond to the challenge (and still have not), but resorted to an ad hominem argument (which I might add is your specialty and I surely expect more):



ladyc4:
I don't know who the hell peed in your cornflakes, but its men with your level of anger, resentment and damage that make women think twice about dating.


Which is why I replied with:



x_file:
In other words, you can't backup the bullshit you preach.


The "bullshit" here referring to your claim that the 50% rule reflects the concept that the married couple acquire assets by TEAMWORK.

As your defense, you went to quote some source stating...



All states are "division states" in a divorce. A handful are known as "community" property states where marital assets are usually split 50/50 right down the middle. The rest of the nation is comprised of "equitable" property states. Ohio is as an equitable property distribution state. When spouses cannot agree on division on their own, the Court will distribute the marital assets between the two parties in an equitable fashion. Equitable does not mean equal, but what is fair.


...which clearly states nothing about "TEAMWORK".

The source you quoted simply informs a person of the rules (or at least some). It informs, but does not justify.

It says NOTHING about why teamwork justifies the 50/50 rule.

A side note:

What is interesting about your source is that it contradicts itself, and proves you wrong.

It informs a person that there are 2 types of asset splits:

A) 50/50
B) Equitable

The source goes on to claim that "equitable" means "fair", but not equal. Yet 50/50 is equal.

So there are two ways to split assets: fair, and 50/50.

Well since fair is fair but not equal, and 50/50 is equal, one must conclude 50/50 is unfair. Which means your 50% rule is equal, but NOT fair.

Second side note:

The very fact that there are 2 different types of asset splits, contradicting one another, should make a rational person, at least, consider that the divorce laws are completely made up - just like Santa Claus. There are no reasons/justifications backing up such laws, no concerns for justice but simply made up - like kids make up the rules of a game as they go. In simple terms, it is all bullshit.

Then you went on several tangents beginning with the question...



ladyc4:
The no fault divorce laws, and the division of marital assets are something I made up out of thin air?


... which has really NOTHING to do with why teamwork justifies the 50/50 rule.

As far as I'm concerned your statement...

"The 50% rule reflects the concept that the married couple acquire assets by TEAMWORK."

... is completely your own fabrication AND false. You have NOT provided a source backing up your claim. And you have not provided any reasoning as to why anyone should believe it.

If there is any anger on my side, it is not towards women. It is towards people like yourself - ignorant and unable to admit fault.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 481
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/12/2011 5:15:37 PM
Well, apparently some people have trouble with reading comprehension and basic grasp of divorce laws.

The 50/50 principle applies to community proerty states
which are Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. In addition, Puerto Rico is a community property jurisdiction.
It means


These states generally regard as community property all property that has been acquired during the marriage, other than a gift or inheritance. Even if one spouse earns all the money to acquire the property, all the property acquired is considered to be community property. While there are a number of differences in each state, all states have special laws that operate on the theory that both spouses contribute equally to the marriage; thus all property acquired during the marriage is the result of the combined efforts of both spouses. In community property jurisdictions, spouses equally own all community property (fifty percent owned by the husband and fifty percent owned by the wife).

from
http://family-law.freeadvice.com/divorce_law/1community_property.htm

From another site...ehow.com


Division of assets is a major element of a divorce case. In each state there is a specific law that determines how the assets of the marriage are to be divided between the divorcing couple.

Types
There are two primary types of laws dealing with division of assets. Community property operates from the premise that the assets accumulated during the marriage are divided equally between the spouses. Equitable division does not necessarily divide assets equally but rather uses a less defined "fairness" standard.
Community Property
California is perhaps the best known community property state. Generally the value of the assets accumulated during the marriage are totaled and an even split is made between both spouses.
Equitable Division
Equitable division laws are on the books in a majority of states. These laws require a case by case examination of facts and factors to determine how assets are divided between the parties.
Considerations
There are a variety of factors that alter the manner in which assets are divided. The most significant factor is the existence of a prenuptial agreement.
Warning
The division of assets during a divorce presents some of the most challenging issues in family court. Your interests likely are best protected by retaining an attorney to represent you in your divorce.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5785828_division-assets-divorce-law_.html

Actually, the language that I read in several sites seems to indicate that having the right to share-either 50/50 or by equitable division, is simply a principle of marriage,and no justification or explanation is given.
But much of the general information regarding the division of marital assets seems to suggest that it is due to the couple supporting and assisting one antoher in their endeavors-which I would certainly consider to be teamwork. There is also the principle that the husband and wife are considered as a unit(particularly the IRS does this),and to sever the union means that each party is entitled to part of the gains(and losses).
I personally thought that "teamwork" would be an easier concept to understand than the "a married couple is considered to be one united person, not 2 separate ones" principle"Or the unsupported statement in one article- "as a married couple you are entitled to share in each others'gains and losses."

Let me CLARIFY THAT. In the past half century or thereabouts, additional stautes have been passed that do permit a certain amount of "separateness"within the marriage-particularly as it relates to a married woman being able to obtain credit and have her own credit history.

But here is a general overview of "community property" and "equitable division"-and why where you live is what determines which one applies. This is NOT "contradictory".



Dividing the family’s property during divorce can be quite difficult, especially if there are significant assets such as houses, rental property, retirement and pension plans, stock options, restricted stock, deferred compensation, brokerage accounts, closely-held businesses, professional practices and licenses, etc. Deciding who should get what can be quite a challenge, even under the most amenable of situations. But, if your divorce is contentious, then this can be especially complicated.

Assets should not necessarily be divided simply based on their current dollar value. You need to understand which assets will be best for your short- and long-term financial security. This is not always easy to discern without a thorough understanding of the asset itself – its liquidity, cost basis and any tax implications associated with its sale.

However, before we go any further, we need to discuss the differences between Separate and Marital Property and why that’s critically important to you. In my experience, this is an area that is not well understood by most people.

States differ in some of the details, but generally speaking, Separate Property includes:

•Any property that was owned by either spouse prior to the marriage;

• An inheritance received by the husband or wife (either before or after the marriage);

• A gift received by the husband or wife from a third party (your mother gave you her diamond ring);

• Payment received for pain and suffering portion in a personal injury judgment

Warning: Separate property can lose its separate property status if you commingle it with marital property or vice versa. For example, if you re-title your separately owned condo by adding your husband as a co-owner or if you deposit the inheritance from your parents into a joint bank account with him, then that property will most likely now be considered marital property.

All other property that is acquired during the marriage is usually considered marital property regardless of which spouse owns the property or how the property is titled. Most people don’t understand this. I’ve had many clients tell me that they were not entitled to a specific asset, because it was titled in their husband’s name – such as his 401K. This is not true! This point is worth repeating because it is that important. All property that is acquired during the marriage is usually considered marital property regardless of which spouse owns the property or how that property is titled.

(State laws vary greatly, especially between Community Property & Equitable Distribution States, so please consult with your divorce attorney).

Marital property consists of all income and assets acquired by either spouse during the marriage including, but not limited to: Pension Plans; 401Ks, IRAs and other Retirement Plans; Deferred Compensation; Stock Options; Restricted Stocks and other equity; Bonuses; Commissions; Country Club memberships; Annuities; Life Insurance (especially those with cash values); Brokerage accounts – mutual funds, stocks, bonds, etc; Bank Accounts – Checking, Savings, Christmas Club, CDs, etc; Closely-held businesses; Professional Practices and licenses; Real Estate; Limited Partnerships; Cars, boats, etc; Art, antiques; Tax refunds.

In many states, if your separately owned property increases in value during the marriage, that increase is also considered marital property. However some states will differentiate between active and passive appreciation when deciding if an increase in the value of separate property should be considered marital property.

So what’s the difference?

Active appreciation is appreciation that is due, in part, to the direct or indirect contributions or efforts of the other spouse (e.g. your husband helped you grow your business by giving you ideas and advice; he entertained clients with you; he helped raise the kids and did some household chores, which allowed you to work late, entertain clients, travel to conventions; etc.).

Passive appreciation is appreciation that is due to outside forces such as supply and demand and inflation. For example, a parcel of land increases in value even though you and your husband made no improvements to it. However, if you used marital income and/or assets to pay the mortgage and/or taxes on this parcel of land, you might have a very good argument that this property, or at least the increase in value during your marriage, should now be considered marital property. As you can see, this can get quite complicated and convoluted. Hiring a good divorce financial planner can help you sort this out.

It is also very important for you to know if you reside in a Community Property State or an Equitable Distribution State. There are nine Community Property States – Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. Community Property states consider both spouses as equal owners of all marital property (a 50-50 split is the rule).

The remaining 41 states are Equitable Distribution states. Settlements in Equitable Distribution States do not need to be equal, but they should be fair and equitable. In Equitable Distribution, several factors are taken into account, including the financial situation of each spouse when dividing assets.

Some of the factors considered are:

•The length of the marriage
•The income or property brought into the marriage by each spouse
•The standard of living established during the marriage
•The age and physical/emotional health of each spouse
•The income and earning potential of each spouse
•The financial situation of each spouse when the divorce is finalized
•The contribution of a spouse to the education, training or earning power of the other
•The needs of the custodial parent to maintain the lifestyle for the children
In addition to these, a court can consider any other factors that it feels might be relevant. This makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to predict the outcome. The bottom line here is that, if possible, you want to stay out of court. There’s a good reason why more than 95% of all divorces are ultimately settled out of court.

Please remember that debts usually get divided in divorce as well. However, Community Property states treat debt differently than Equitable Distribution states, so please make sure that you consult with an experienced divorce specialist.

from
http://blogs.forbes.com/jefflanders/2011/04/12/understanding-how-assets-get-divided-in-divorce/

So, the 50/50 rule applies in the "community property" states. In the states that are "equitable division",as you can see, "equitable" can be quite a complex concept with reference to dividing marital assets and debts.

I admit to being guilty of thinking that most adults on a dating site would KNOW that it is the 9 "community property" states that use the "50/50"basis-and the other 41 use "equitable division" premise-and would understand the difference. So I guess I should say I'm sorry that I didn't realize you were an underinformed participant in the topic.

So here is an example of a good idea to NOT get legally married. If the complexities of divorce and asset division cause you to throw temper tantrums because you can't get your head around them, maybe you should NOT get married.
Maybe you should even stay the hell away from the opposite gender lest one of them lure you into marriage for the purpose of getting either half of your stuff-or "whatever is determined to be equitable" share of your stuff.

I hope this satisfies the demand for "backing up" what I write. It is correct that I did not see any specific writings that state the teamwork concept "in so many words"/"in black&white"-but it certainly is IMPLIED in some of the sources I've quoted here-and that has always been a large part of my understanding of marriage. I have to admit, that as a widow from a 25+ year long marriage- I really do not have direct,first-person experience creating anger and distorting my vision and my comprehension.
Cindy O
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 482
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/12/2011 6:15:06 PM

Equitable Distribution

Just because the words "equate" or "equal" can be found in equitable, does not mean you will automatically receive half of everything. In the 41 equitable distribution states, the court decides what is a fair, reasonable and equitable division of assets. The court might decide to award either spouse 0-100%.

How does the Court decide what's equitable? It factors in things like how long the marriage lasted, what each person brought into the marriage, how much each can or does earn, responsibilities for children, retraining, tax consequences, and debt. If you have a marital agreement, signed before or during marriage, you will have more control over how your assets are divided.

Essential things to remember about equitable distribution:

Everything you acquired during your marriage is subject to division.
It doesn't matter whose name or money was used to acquire the asset.
You, not the judge, have to prove what assets exist.
If you can prove your spouse did away with some assets with divorce in mind, the Court may award you a sum equal in value.
If you have educated yourself on the state's laws you can then create, with your attorney, a strategy that will lead you to what you really want.
You, as a partner in the marriage, are also responsible for any debts acquired during the marriage.

Community Property

Only in Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin will division begin at 50-50 if the marriage ends in divorce. These are the only states that now have community property laws. Here are some things to keep in mind:

Essential things to remember about community property:

Just as all assets are considered marital property, so are all debts. Both are generally split right down the middle.
Beware that those spouses who are aware that their state is community property may hide debt or increase debt due to the fact that their spouse is equally responsible.
If you have residency in two states (one that is community property and one that is equitable distribution) speak with your attorney about which will benefit you more before filing. Generally speaking, the higher wage earner will do better in an equitable distribution state while a stay-at-home spouse would benefit from the community property state.


Now notice the statement....
Just because the words "equate" or "equal" can be found in equitable, does not mean you will automatically receive half of everything. In the 41 equitable distribution states, the court decides what is a fair, reasonable and equitable division of assets. The court might decide to award either spouse 0-100%.


This points out there is nothing fair about either way assets are divided.

It would be much easier and fair if there was an agreement before marriage and the government was left out of settlements.

Let each person be responsible for their own assets during marriage and for themselves after the marriage ends.

There are ways for people to shield their assets from divorce if it is done then only one persons assets are considered in the divorce.

If I married w/o a pre nup my assets would be a bank account with $2000.00 dollars in it. My house and cars and other assets are not "owned" by me but are in LLC's.

All I have to do is keep that amount of cash in it and my assets never grow.
If the lady I would possibly marry doesn't have like protections, I could easily take half her assets.

As far as getting ones brain around the division of assets laws. I have done that and have found many ways of rendering the laws inapplicable to my assets. I am hoping by discussing these pitfalls others can do the same and it seems it is happening.

Funny thing some here say to stay away from attorneys before marriage to prearrange a split but advocate getting one in the divorce to get the best settlement.

Understand a attorney will charge a set amount to make a pre nup however they will charge by the hour for a settlement in a divorce case.

What could have been done for $700.00 before marriage can explode int a $7000.00 bill in a divorce case.

But of course what do I know I just beat the odds twice!

 x_file
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 483
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/12/2011 6:36:37 PM

Those principles have been applied in the legal marriages that I've seen work well and the individuals love being in.


We are not quite on the same page. I get you, but I don't think you do.

Practicing the principles in a legal marriage is different than having the principles as PART of the legal contract called marriage.

If it is not wise to mix finances, for example, then the legal contract call marriage should prohibit people to do so.

Let me clarify something. When a person in love says "I want to get married", they don't think "I want a sign a contract". They think, "I like this person, and would like to be with this person forever", or something along those lines.

Thus, as someone already pointed out, when a person uses the word marriage, it has at least two meanings:

A) A social union.
B) Legal contract.

Nearly everyone wants A. I have no problem with A).

I have a problem with B). But whenever I speak against marriage some women take it personally because they believe I'm speaking against A). Actually they take it personally because they believe I'm implying women are not worth men's time... or something as twisted as that.

Consider:

1) Marriage is the only contract, that I know of, which you first sign, then negotiate.

Now clearly anyone can work out finances prior to signing the marriage certificate. And anyone can ask for a prenup. And no one has to sign the marriage certificate if they don't want to. All that is beside the point.

Signing the marriage certificate is like signing a blank check.

2) By signing the marriage contract a person becomes a subject to the divorce laws which can change at any time without notice. If the divorce law states 50/50 asset split today, 5 years down the road it could be 40/60 - or better yet as a judge determines "fair".

This is a dirty trick. When the consequences for breach of a contract can change without notice, the terms of the contract itself become almost irrelevant.

3) The marriage contract is a business/financial contract disguised as a contract (or announcement) of social union.

There is a subtle deception being propagated, namely that the marriage contract is really about love, not money.

There are two sides to marriage.... the social union, and the legal contract... and every effort is being made to confuse and blend the two.

4) The marriage contract is the only contract in which the terms for breach of contract can be anything a person feels like. Any married person can seek a divorce for any reason.

This allows for major financial exploitation.

Side note: I support no-fault divorce, even though at the moment it has become a tool for quick financial exploitation. If the "financial reward" is removed, the idea of no-fault divorce is sound.

5) The core issue with the marriage contract is that it "plays lose" with one of the most basic natural principles nearly every sane person believes, namely: one is entitled to and can keep the fruits of one's labor.

Violate this principle, and you have communism. Undermine it, and you are looking for trouble. If stealing is wrong it is wrong on the basis of this principle.

In simple terms, the core issue with marriage, or the marriage contract, why it is corrupt, and evil, is that it allows for legal theft.

Now whether a person chooses to take someone to cleaners is a completely different issue. The point here is that the marriage contract allows for legal theft.


I hope this satisfies the demand for "backing up" what I write. It is correct that I did not see any specific writings that state the teamwork concept "in so many words"/"in black&white"-but it certainly is IMPLIED in some of the sources I've quoted here-and that has always been a large part of my understanding of marriage.


Thank you. You just regained your reputation. And no, not because it was implied, or not and you were right or wrong, but because you actually addressed the issue, and you were honest.
 x_file
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 484
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/12/2011 7:47:03 PM

Actually, the language that I read in several sites seems to indicate that having the right to share-either 50/50 or by equitable division, is simply a principle of marriage,and no justification or explanation is given.


Now that is interesting, isn't it?

And if there are really no justifications for the 50/50 split, I have NO problem with it so long as we are honest about it, and so long as no dumb ass comes and claims 50/50 is fair because of this or that.

The rule is there simply because it is... simply because we made it up as we went along.

And if I'm wrong, and there are reasons for this rule, it would be nice to know them, to clarify them, to analyze them.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 485
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/12/2011 9:25:13 PM

As far as getting ones brain around the division of assets laws. I have done that and have found many ways of rendering the laws inapplicable to my assets. I am hoping by discussing these pitfalls others can do the same and it seems it is happening.

That was not particularly directed to you or about you. I think that anyone who has been participating/reading this thread is thoroughly aware of all the protections and precautions you have in place to prevent something you've already avoided twice, by using a threat of public airing of dirty linen,so to speak. Let me just make this observation...no matter how many LLCs, trust accounts, shell corporations and prenuptial agreements you create, those things cannot prevent a woman from cheating on you, leaving you for another man, adopting methods of getting ahead at work that are not the acts of a person of integrity,etc. I still say your best defense against getting emotionally devastated(again) is to spend some time asking yourself what REALLY went wrong, instead of focusing on casting blame on others and focusing on protecting your money from another failed marriage. You may be able to hang onto your MONEY,but that isn't going to stop the emotional pain that will ensue if yet another committed relationship(with or without the formality of marriage)fails.

What could have been done for $700.00 before marriage can explode int a $7000.00 bill in a divorce case.

But of course what do I know I just beat the odds twice!


You beat the socioeconomic potential ramifications( losing significant amounts of "your" assets)-but you didn't beat the betrayal and it's emotional aftermath.
You have focused on protecting your assets, getting revenge, creating objects of blame,building an elaborate defense against any risk to your WALLET in any future relationships. You've learned about protecting yourself against another failure, I think at the expense of really LOOKING at what went wrong in your previous marriages. As I said, I'm sure that all your arrangements will do an admirable job of protecting your money and stuff,but will it protect your emotional well-being in the event of another epic fail in the committed relationship department?
*****************************************************


If it is not wise to mix finances, for example, then the legal contract call marriage should prohibit people to do so.

That would be an interesting thing to see, since for so many intents and purposes having to do with the government,taxation, legal responsibilities,civil responsibilities, the concept of "union" and "two become as one" are used. Possibly some of this goes back to when marriage was a transfer of the "ownership" of a female human being from her father to her husband. And it certainly simplifies things for the census, the IRS,etc that a married couple is considered as one unit. I'm not going to say I disagree with the concept of forcing a married couple to keep separate finances,but I think that it would meet a great deal of organized resistance from SEVERAL directions.


By signing the marriage contract a person becomes a subject to the divorce laws which can change at any time without notice. If the divorce law states 50/50 asset split today, 5 years down the road it could be 40/60 - or better yet as a judge determines "fair".
Do you see that as a real danger? I mean that question sincerely and seriously. With more and more women staying in the workforce and earning as much, if not more,than her husband, I'm inclined to think that there would be no reason to re-adjust the principles and statutes that govern division of assets from a marriage that has failed. I suppose anything is possible, though.


The core issue with the marriage contract is that it "plays lose" with one of the most basic natural principles nearly every sane person believes, namely: one is entitled to and can keep the fruits of one's labor.

yes, that is true-but then, in marriage, the principle of "two become as one" comes into play. So "one" IS keeping the fruits of "one's" labor,except that the "one" in marriage is 2 people. If the marriage becomes unsustainable/untenable and the "one" must go back to becoming "two"-then each "half" of what was "one", gets a share of the "fruits of one's labor" that were grown/created while the 2 halves were as one-irrespective of how the division of labor and responsibilities had worked in a particular failed marriage.

There is a great deal of history behind the customs of the institution( or estate) of matrimony-it hasn't ALWAYS been about "love". In some past societies and cultures, marriages were often about 2 families combining forces, about combining property holdings, to ensure a "protector" for a daughter, about one family gaining in social status and improving their finances by an "advantageous" marriage, to ensure that there would be healthy heirs for property and possessions, to ensure succession of rulership or leadership of a country, a region, a tribe or clan.

As other posters have pointed out-looking over the whole history of marriage as we know it, the protections of division of marital assets, formal arrangements for custody of minor children and the support of said children are fairly recent developments. At one time a man could desert his wife, toss her and the children-or just her, out of the house...a married woman who was childless( or the couple's child(ren)died) could be pretty much on her own if a divorce occurred, and she would have to get by as best she could( this actually happened to one of my grandmothers).

So yes, in theory, it seems like the financial and legal aspects of marriage should and ought to be taken out of the equation. But actually the financial and legal aspects came BEFORE the love/emotional committment component of the marriage contract,so it would take a lot of unraveling and we could end up with a body of laws , statutes,technicalities, caveats, disclaimers,etc. regarding marriage that the collective heads of our civil legislative system would explode.
Cindy O
 kayla1963
Joined: 4/1/2011
Msg: 486
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/13/2011 3:53:22 AM
But of course what do I know I just beat the odds twice!



That is an interesting perspective.

I wonder why you don't recommend that men make the same choices you made and marry women with mental illness (like your first bi-polar wife) or drug and alcohol addictions (like your second wife), rendering them unfit mothers, resulting in the rather unusual circumstance of the father (you) getting full custody TWICE.

Are those the "odds" you beat?

You seem to have an "odd" track record in my opinion.

Too bad the women in both cases are essentially unemployable and incapable of doing their part in supporting their offspring.

It is a good thing you are focused on protecting your assets, since you have demonstrated your lack of judgement in spouses.

Too bad you don't seem to be capable of protecting yourself from your own poor picker.
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 487
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/13/2011 6:32:19 AM

That was not particularly directed to you or about you.


Please show me where I said it was directed to me or about me. As you have pointed out any comment made is made to all participants here....of which I am one.


I think that anyone who has been participating/reading this thread is thoroughly aware of all the protections and precautions you have in place to prevent something you've already avoided twice, by using a threat of public airing of dirty linen,so to speak.


Then consider the refresher for those just joining us.


Let me just make this observation...no matter how many LLCs, trust accounts, shell corporations and prenuptial agreements you create, those things cannot prevent a woman from cheating on you, leaving you for another man, adopting methods of getting ahead at work that are not the acts of a person of integrity,etc


Please show me where I claimed the protections would prevent a woman from cheating or leaving me for another man.

As far as integrity it show more integrity to be up front about me wanting to preserve my assets in the event of a divorce..................... than it does to be an adulterer.


I still say your best defense against getting emotionally devastated(again) is to spend some time asking yourself what REALLY went wrong, instead of focusing on casting blame on others and focusing on protecting your money from another failed marriage. You may be able to hang onto your MONEY,but that isn't going to stop the emotional pain that will ensue if yet another committed relationship(with or without the formality of marriage)fails.


See there again this is where reading unto comprehension.

Not once have I said or claimed I was trying to control another persons free will to leave a relationship with me or try to stop them from cheating.

My defense is simply to not have to pay such a person my assets. Which you point out will work.
What you fail to comprehend is the exact same protection is afforded to the woman in my case.

It is called personal responsibility. Each person has to support themselves after a divorce if one occurs.

However each party knows this going into the marriage/relationship it is not the open-ended blank check for either party that we presently have now.


You beat the socioeconomic potential ramifications( losing significant amounts of "your" assets)-but you didn't beat the betrayal and it's emotional aftermath.


Not trying to beat the betrayal/emotional aftermath. I see noway to do so and have stated as much.

If the relationship ends badly and the emotional damage is inevitable then wouldn't it be better NOT to be in a financial crisis at the same time?

I can attest it is.


You have focused on protecting your assets, getting revenge, creating objects of blame,building an elaborate defense against any risk to your WALLET in any future relationships. You've learned about protecting yourself against another failure


Which is what I can control me and my actions I don't have a snowballs chance in Hades of actually controlling another person nor would I want to. I can control myself and my assets.


I think at the expense of really LOOKING at what went wrong in your previous marriages.


I know exactly what went wrong in my last marriage. She even admitted to me she was wrong in what she did and was sorry she did it.

Seeing as she is admitted that the cheating was brought on by "getting dollar signs in her eyes" and that she was responsible for the breakup of our marriage. I fail to see why I should be looking to place blame on me.
I have been working on the broken picker and glad to report it is working much better now.

I was able to weed one out not so long ago that saved me a lot of grief.


At one time a man could desert his wife, toss her and the children-or just her, out of the house...a married woman who was childless( or the couple's child(ren)died) could be pretty much on her own if a divorce occurred, and she would have to get by as best she could( this actually happened to one of my grandmothers).


Let me frame this by acknowledging that I know this was not directed to or about me. However seeing as it is directed to the participants of the thread I will give my humble opinion.

It seems to me you may be hyper-vigilant about women not being able to be self-supportive in the event of divorce because of what your grandmother went through.

That was a very different time and women have as much ability today to care for themselves after a divorce as men do........If they desire to!
******************************************************************************


That is an interesting perspective.

I wonder why you don't recommend that men make the same choices you made and marry women with mental illness (like your first bi-polar wife) or drug and alcohol addictions (like your second wife), rendering them unfit mothers, resulting in the rather unusual circumstance of the father (you) getting full custody TWICE.

Are those the "odds" you beat?

Again if the people here would read to comprehension some of these....
Argumentum ad hominem - An argument against the man. Directing an argument against an opponent's character rather than the subject at hand

Could be avoided.

My first wife I married very young and neither of us knew she was Bi-Polar she was diagnosed after the end of the marriage. She is now deceased because of some very bad drinking habits and eating habits that she picked up right after our divorce. 4'11 and 325 pounds wreak havoc on the cardiovascular system.

I also posted in my first marriage I was young and dumb....I think that covers my culpability in that divorce.

The mother of my son that got hooked on drugs after we split-up was never married to me. I posted that as well.

Seeing as my son was a few months old and we were no longer together when she took up the drug habit I am pretty sure I would not be culpable for any of that.

I got custody of my son when he was 2 and a half. She stated to the judge of her own free will that our son would be better off with me as she knew she had a problem but had no desire to quit. To her credit she has since quit and is a manager of a local restaurant back in GA.
We are actually good friends now and are able to work together with ease to help our son.


Too bad the women in both cases are essentially unemployable and incapable of doing their part in supporting their offspring.

It is a good thing you are focused on protecting your assets, since you have demonstrated your lack of judgement in spouses.

Too bad you don't seem to be capable of protecting yourself from your own poor picker.


My last wife and I had no children together and I made sure I would not be having any with anyone ever again.

She is employable and works in a DR's office as well as getting an allowance from her current husband.(my daughter still talks to her and she just has to brag about all her money) I use the term "her money" loosely.

As I stated above the picker thing I am working on but at least I can rest easy knowing with my assets are safe till I get that little bugger working right!
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 488
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/13/2011 9:17:46 AM

That was not particularly directed to you or about you.


Please show me where I said it was directed to me or about me. As you have pointed out any comment made is made to all participants here....of which I am one.

But you take so many of both my and other posters' comments, and then post your own message with specifics of your own experiences and arrangements, and YOUR situation/issues.

I think that anyone who has been participating/reading this thread is thoroughly aware of all the protections and precautions you have in place to prevent something you've already avoided twice, by using a threat of public airing of dirty linen,so to speak.


Then consider the refresher for those just joining us.

You don't think that people are capable of reading the posts prior to page 22,and not NEED a refresher course?

Let me just make this observation...no matter how many LLCs, trust accounts, shell corporations and prenuptial agreements you create, those things cannot prevent a woman from cheating on you, leaving you for another man, adopting methods of getting ahead at work that are not the acts of a person of integrity,etc


Please show me where I claimed the protections would prevent a woman from cheating or leaving me for another man.

As far as integrity it show more integrity to be up front about me wanting to preserve my assets in the event of a divorce..................... than it does to be an adulterer.

For some reason or other, you seem to have gotten MONEY(assets) mixed up with love. You have focused on amassing and protecting money/tangible assets-which is very possibly why your ex got the message that "money=love"
and "got dollar signs in her eyes". I am not the only poster who has made this observation.


Not once have I said or claimed I was trying to control another persons free will to leave a relationship with me or try to stop them from cheating.

Just about everything you post is about control! You don't have to make a statement or claim!

My defense is simply to not have to pay such a person my assets.

So you go into relationships on the defensive,because you EXPECT that the big attraction of a relationship with you is your material assets. As for your past failed relationships, you've woven yourself a cloak of blamelessness...it was greed, bad co-workers,mental illness, drugs. In fact, you see yourself as a victim and so you have created an elaborate defense system, against having your assets "stolen"-which actually has NOT happened thus far!-but somehow or other you've come to equate assets with love. Your assets have become your armor against emotional hurt.

What you fail to comprehend is the exact same protection is afforded to the woman in my case.

Where did I ever say that? In fact, it seems like it has been some male posters who are screaming that women don't need any additional protection because the divorce court is going to favor the lower-earning female anyway.
Why would you think I failed to comprehend that? Because I'm female and therefore automatically have less brain-and earning-power?

However each party knows this going into the marriage/relationship it is not the open-ended blank check for either party that we presently have now.
An open-ended blank check??? So that's what you really think marriage is about? An open-ended blank check for ONE of the parties in the marriage?
If you so fear this situation-why not just choose to avoid marriage?

I know exactly what went wrong in my last marriage. She even admitted to me she was wrong in what she did and was sorry she did it.

Ah yes, that magic cloak of blaming someone else...Do you not grasp the irony here????

It seems to me you may be hyper-vigilant about women not being able to be self-supportive in the event of divorce because of what your grandmother went through.

Ummm, now you are grasping at straws. I mentioned my grandmother as a historical illustration of something that used to happen before division of marital assets, spousal support and child support were put into the divorce laws and statutes.

My first wife I married very young and neither of us knew she was Bi-Polar she was diagnosed after the end of the marriage.

Umm-yo do realize that "bi-polar disorder" is a subjective diagnosis, there are no blood tests, xrays,MRI,etc to "prove" that someone has it? That it isn't all that uncommon for someone under a great deal of stress/going through a life-changing situation( divorce, death of a loved one,victim of conflict or natural disaster,birth-or death-of a child,job loss, relocation,serious financial adversity) to exhibit symptoms that could be considered indicative of bi-polar disorder? Or that physical issues( pain,severe fatigue, hormonal fluctuations of pregnancy/post-partum/menopause) can also cause what appear to be bi-polar symptoms? The "good days/bad days phenomena of several chronic illnesses-RA, MS, MD, FMS, CFS can also be mistaken for symptoms of bi-polar disorder.


The mother of my son that got hooked on drugs after we split-up was never married to me. I posted that as well.

Seeing as my son was a few months old and we were no longer together when she took up the drug habit I am pretty sure I would not be culpable for any of that.
Are you kidding? Whether right or wrong, there is an entire school of thought that blames addictions,personality/though disorders, poor social adjustment,etc on families and relationships? So who can say for sure about "culpability"?
Hell, you just accused ME of "hypervigilance" because I related something that happened to my grandmother...doesn't that make my grandmother, who has been dead for over 40 years,rest her soul!-"culpable" in the "hypervigilance" that you think I suffer from???
Cindy O
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 489
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/13/2011 9:57:44 AM

But you take so many of both my and other posters' comments, and then post your own message with specifics of your own experiences and arrangements, and YOUR situation/issues.


And just whos point of view would you like me to post from. I am me I can only post from my experiences and viewpoint.



You don't think that people are capable of reading the posts prior to page 22,and not NEED a refresher course?


No most don't read the whole thread as proved by the poster that thought my last wife was the mother of one of my children.


For some reason or other, you seem to have gotten MONEY(assets) mixed up with love. You have focused on amassing and protecting money/tangible assets-which is very possibly why your ex got the message that "money=love"
and "got dollar signs in her eyes". I am not the only poster who has made this observation.


No that is your opinion of me. Never have I said anything about the emotional cost I understand that very well. And as I said no one can stop that loss if the relationship goes bad.

And your not the only poster that has it wrong and a couple of other posters has even said there is no way for you to know that.

It is a.....Argumentum ad hominem and Argumentum ad ignorantiam.


Just about everything you post is about control! You don't have to make a statement or claim!


Control of myself and my assets NOT another person.


So you go into relationships on the defensive,because you EXPECT that the big attraction of a relationship with you is your material assets.


NOPE I protect my assets because I know they could be at risk.


As for your past failed relationships, you've woven yourself a cloak of blamelessness...it was greed, bad co-workers,mental illness, drugs. In fact, you see yourself as a victim and so you have created an elaborate defense system, against having your assets "stolen"-which actually has NOT happened thus far!-but somehow or other you've come to equate assets with love. Your assets have become your armor against emotional hurt.


I admitted my fault in the first I was young and dumb,,,,,The second she admitted not only to me but her friends that she screwed up.

After I told her that there was no way we would be getting back together. One of her friend wanted to date me because of all the things she told her about me.

Blame can only lay where it belongs. I can't accept responsibility that is hers and she accepts.


Where did I ever say that? In fact, it seems like it has been some male posters who are screaming that women don't need any additional protection because the divorce court is going to favor the lower-earning female anyway.
Why would you think I failed to comprehend that? Because I'm female and therefore automatically have less brain-and earning-power?


I'm not the one that is trying to turn this into a Argumentum ad hominem I have not even hinted at that those are your words.


Ah yes, that magic cloak of blaming someone else...Do you not grasp the irony here????


You mean the magic cloak of her saying she screwed up?


Ummm, now you are grasping at straws. I mentioned my grandmother as a historical illustration of something that used to happen before division of marital assets, spousal support and child support were put into the divorce laws and statutes.


And I posted my experiences as what is happening now......So the difference is?


Umm-yo do realize that "bi-polar disorder" is a subjective diagnosis, there are no blood tests, xrays,MRI,etc to "prove" that someone has it? That it isn't all that uncommon for someone under a great deal of stress/going through a life-changing situation( divorce, death of a loved one,victim of conflict or natural disaster,birth-or death-of a child,job loss, relocation,serious financial adversity) to exhibit symptoms that could be considered indicative of bi-polar disorder? Or that physical issues( pain,severe fatigue, hormonal fluctuations of pregnancy/post-partum/menopause) can also cause what appear to be bi-polar symptoms? The "good days/bad days phenomena of several chronic illnesses-RA, MS, MD, FMS, CFS can also be mistaken for symptoms of bi-polar disorder.


Did you realize when she took her Bi-Polar meds she was actually normal? More than one Dr agreed that she was Bi-Polar.
She even ended up on SSI because of it. I'm sure the Dr's know way more than you do about her disease.


Are you kidding? Whether right or wrong, there is an entire school of thought that blames addictions,personality/though disorders, poor social adjustment,etc on families and relationships? So who can say for sure about "culpability"?


This is exactly the problem.....No one is responsible for themselves it is always someone elses fault.

I didn't tell her to smoke dope she made that choice. Yet you are trying to say I am the problem there to. Argumentum ad hominem & Argumentum ad ignorantiam.


Hell, you just accused ME of "hypervigilance" because I related something that happened to my grandmother...doesn't that make my grandmother, who has been dead for over 40 years,rest her soul!-"culpable" in the "hypervigilance" that you think I suffer from???


I did that to show there was no more validity in that than there is you accusing me of not taking the blame for women in my life that screwed up. And even admit it.

So thanks for making my point.

One other thing.

You posted....
yes, that is true-but then, in marriage, the principle of "two become as one" comes into play. So "one" IS keeping the fruits of "one's" labor,except that the "one" in marriage is 2 people. If the marriage becomes unsustainable/untenable and the "one" must go back to becoming "two"-then each "half" of what was "one", gets a share of the "fruits of one's labor" that were grown/created while the 2 halves were as one-irrespective of how the division of labor and responsibilities had worked in a particular failed marriage.


So now you want to go by the vows....What about the part that says "TILL DEATH DO US PART"?

I don't expect anyone to stay in a bad marriage or even one they just don't want anymore for no reason.

But if your going to break one of them then why should the other part stand?
 kayla1963
Joined: 4/1/2011
Msg: 490
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/13/2011 10:51:54 AM
You're joshing, right?


It is a.....Argumentum ad hominem and Argumentum ad ignorantiam.


At the very best, it is disingenuous or perhaps deceitful to predicate the point of your debate on PERSONAL experience (which is what you claim to be the driving force in your mission to educate the male masses) and then pull the ad hominem card when asked for clarification.

I wouldn't want to think it is because you are ignorant of basic debate progression.

Again, I ask, how did you "beat the odds twice" as you personally claim?

You didn't have to divide assets with your first wife who was probably happy to leave you with the child rearing responsibility because of her Bi-polar disorder. I doubt that you amassed much in the way of personal fortune, having married her out of high school. Maybe she got pregnant before graduating.

So what odds do you crow about "beating?"
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 491
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/13/2011 11:20:24 AM


At the very best, it is disingenuous or perhaps deceitful to predicate the point of your debate on PERSONAL experience (which is what you claim to be the driving force in your mission to educate the male masses) and then pull the ad hominem card when asked for clarification.



Seeing as all the clarification was already posted and you chose to ignore it. My statement of Argumentum ad hominem & Argumentum ad ignorantiam is correct.


You didn't have to divide assets with your first wife who was probably happy to leave you with the child rearing resoonsibilitybecause of her Bi-polar disorder.


Actually in the divorce she got the house and a car and child support. She wanted to marry her lover so I bought them back for a penance. The total divorce cost me less than $2000.00 I'd say most any guy that has been through a divorce would call that beating the odds.

I didn't get custody of my daughter until she was a little over 1 y/o. She was conceived in the second year of our marriage. Though GA law says support must be paid the judge allowed her to pay nothing. Although I had been paying her support from the time of the divorce. Some men may neglect to pay support but never heard of one that was allowed to not pay at all.


So what odds do you crow about "beating?"


Simple the odds of being taken to the cleaners in the two divorces I went through.

Lets see that makes you zero for....well ever how many Argumentum ad hominem arguments you have posted to me.


Please lets get back on topic this while fun is not the topic. Which is why the Argumentum ad hominem statement is correct.

Tell me if the laws are so fair,why is it that there are national news outlets covering stories of females that are the higher earners wanting the laws changed?

Why not let the people involved decide before marriage of a fair split of assets.
Instead of a contract of the state do it for them EX POST FACTO no other "contract" is done that way.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 492
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/13/2011 12:06:08 PM

No most don't read the whole thread as proved by the poster that thought my last wife was the mother of one of my children.

OK-and this whole thread is about YOU, YOUR exes, YOUR life...?
That's odd, according to the title it's about the reasons for getting legally married.
What seems to have surfaced is a discussion of reasons for NOT getting "legally"(officially) married. Which is probably close enough to the topic.
BUt you seem to have taken it as your own personal narrative to describe your failed marriages and relationships,which you have come out of essentially with little socio-economic damage.
And you jump on any excuse( like one poster not knowing the exact sequence of events in your relationships and parenthood)to go into it again.

Never have I said anything about the emotional cost
-not specifically,in so many words.
I understand that very well.
I'm sorry,but I have to disagree. In my OPINION,rather than recognize and acknowledge the emotional pain, you've devoted yourself to the task of protecting your assets and assigning blame for the failure of your previous relationships. I do not disagree with anyone protecting their assets-especially when there are children involved that one would like to leave something to-but why not construct that protective plan when you actually have a specific situation in front of you? Instead you have pretty much concluded that any marriage you have is going to fail so you are busy creating protections against every conceivable contingency-and then tossing in the "this will work to protect HER assets too!" to "prove" that you are being fair-minded.

And your not the only poster that has it wrong and a couple of other posters has even said there is no way for you to know that.
I've not claimed to "know" it. "It seems" is not a statement of knowing something.

Control of myself and my assets NOT another person.
Control of situations,circumstances,the dynamics of a relationship...

The second she admitted not only to me but her friends that she screwed up.

Really-the one that married the guy she cheated on you with-that has a good job AND gets an allowance from her present husband? Going by your standards, she BETTERED herself financially-so why would she say such a thing?

One of her friend wanted to date me because of all the things she told her about me.

would this be one of those people whom you claim corrupted her and led her into bad ways???

Did you realize when she took her Bi-Polar meds she was actually normal? More than one Dr agreed that she was Bi-Polar.
She even ended up on SSI because of it. I'm sure the Dr's know way more than you do about her disease.

It is still a subjective diagnosis and can be difficult to support-which is why SSD,SSI, and private disability insurances are more apt to deny or delay claims.

No one is responsible for themselves it is always someone elses fault.

OMG- my ironymeter is red-lining.
Lets see. you are concerned to a near-pathological state about protecting your assets from marriage failures that are all the fault of the other party,who blames their behavior on co-workers morals?

.

I didn't tell her to smoke dope she made that choice. Yet you are trying to say I am the problem there to.
No, I am not. The doper was a relationship partner-not a wife, right?
the whole "argumentum ad hominem" banner you keep waving is nothing but a red herring. You want to allege that it's an argument against you...I can't think WHY you would make that allegation since you seem to respond to almost every message here about YOU and YOUR experiences and situation.

I did that to show there was no more validity in that than there is you accusing me of not taking the blame for women in my life that screwed up. And even admit it.

So thanks for making my point.

IMO, if they ever make backpedalling and Olympic sport, you would be a gold-medal winner.

yes, that is true-but then, in marriage, the principle of "two become as one" comes into play. So "one" IS keeping the fruits of "one's" labor,except that the "one" in marriage is 2 people. If the marriage becomes unsustainable/untenable and the "one" must go back to becoming "two"-then each "half" of what was "one", gets a share of the "fruits of one's labor" that were grown/created while the 2 halves were as one-irrespective of how the division of labor and responsibilities had worked in a particular failed marriage.

See what I mean-it's ALL ABOUT YOU? That message was in response to concerns expressed by another poster about the basis for dividing marital assets in the event of divorce. It was a general observation of the reasons why division of marital assets is the best way to ensure that the 2 partners of a marriage in dissolution do get half of the "fruits of their labor"-it is part of the legal/governmental premise that a married couple is "one". It is not a personal endorsement of the wedding vows.

What about the part that says "TILL DEATH DO US PART"?

What about it? I honored it.
Are you saying now that it was your wives/SOs that severed the marriage/relationship, not you? How does that line up with your threats to prosecute them for adultery? Or did you do that in hopes of keeping the marriage together?
I'm not the one here writing a manifesto because I've experienced multiple failed marriages and relationships.In fact, I probably fit the description of "too picky" because I


I don't expect anyone to stay in a bad marriage or even one they just don't want anymore for no reason.

But if your going to break one of them then why should the other part stand?

This isn't about breaking vows-this is about the sociolegal premise that a married couple is ONE,that assets-and debts!- accrued belong to both of them. That in the event of a marriage dissolution(divorce) the "one" again becomes "two" and the accrued assets and debts need to be divided so that neither one is deprived of the "fruits of their labor" by the failure of the marriage.
Just as a specualtion, I wonder what would happen if the government took the assets and the children of a failed marriage,so that both man and woman rellly did have to start all over again-and their confiscated assets would be used to support the children, who would be raised by a neutral 3rd party? Just a "devil's advocate" exercise in suggesting other solutions to a problem.
Cindy O
 x_file
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 493
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/13/2011 12:44:10 PM

I'm not going to say I disagree with the concept of forcing a married couple to keep separate finances,but I think that it would meet a great deal of organized resistance from SEVERAL directions.


I'm not interested to force a couple to keep separate finances. That's the wrong way to look at it.

Consider that a person (a single person if you will) already has "separate finances" - by default. If you are an young adult you already have your separate bank account. Lets continue this trend regardless how two people are socially connected. That's the point.

If there is resistance, that would be interesting, since what I'm suggesting already happens.... it is nothing new. There are no extra steps necessary - in fact, less steps.



Do you see that as a real danger?


It is a potential danger one should be aware of.

If I were to based my answer on history, I have to say no, it is not a real danger within a period of 5 years. Major laws changes generally don't happen that quickly. For longer periods, it should be something to consider.

However, all of this is only a part of the point. By signing the marriage contract a person becomes a subject to divorce laws. There could be other issues aside how assets are split, including alimony, custody, etc..

Since the divorce laws can change without notice, by signing the marriage contract a person opens a legal backdoor so to speak. Nothing might come out of it. But one should be aware of this.



yes, that is true-but then, in marriage, the principle of "two become as one" comes into play.


I think we need to put the claim "two become as one" through the same scrutiny as the teamwork claim.

Here too, something doesn't add up. It is not immediately obvious this claim is true or holds any merit.



So "one" IS keeping the fruits of "one's" labor,except that the "one" in marriage is 2 people.


This would be something to think about if the claim "two become as one" is true.

First things first. What does it mean for two people to become one or become "as one"? Is there a process two people go through to become "as one"? Can any two people become "as one"?

What reasons are there to believe two people become as one in a marriage? Does every married couple become "as one"?

Are we talking about "one" the number? One flesh? One mind? One unit? And if so, unit of what?

What legal evidence is there backing up this claim? Is it even in the legal system as a justification for anything, for the split of assets?

And here is the question that lies at the heart of the problem at hand: Is an individual "a one" or "a half"?

The quesiton is somewhat rhetorical because by "individual" the meaning of "one" is implied.



If the marriage becomes unsustainable/untenable and the "one" must go back to becoming "two"-then each "half" of what was "one", gets a share of the "fruits of one's labor" that were grown/created while the 2 halves were as one-irrespective of how the division of labor and responsibilities had worked in a particular failed marriage.


This is one possible argument for the split of assets at 50/50. Though there are several major holes in this argument.

The argument depends on the soundness of the claim that "two become as one".

Second, what is implies by an "an individual" is "one". Legally, as far as I know, individual is one entity.

This immediately posses a problem for your argument:

If an individual is a one, and a married couple is a one, which one is more important?

Clearly an individual is entitled to the fruits of his/her labor - to argue against this premise is to argue for communism or slavery, and in general against your own best interest - unless you are really lazy and hardworking people are willing to hand you the fruits of their labor.

In a marriage we have two individuals who are each entitled to the fruits of their own labor. Now a person has to make the jump and justify why each individual in a marriage should forgo their own entitlement to the fruits of their labor in favor for that of the marriage - again marriage being a legal contract, or a social union.

I see no valid reasons for anyone to forgo their own entitlement to the fruits of their labor in favor for the marriage contract, unless your partner makes more, since a 50/50 split benefits you - which opens the door for legal theft.

To forgo your own entitlement to the fruits of your labor in favor for a social union is "mini communism"... literally. Apply the idea on large scale and you have communism.

Again if someone wants to proceed this particular way, with no justification, that's fine by me. Just lets not assume or claim proceeding this is actually fair.

I can only assume that people want fair relationships. Thus if a person chooses some other type of dynamic in a relationship other than fair, and they do so knowingly, then that's their affair.

I personally only take the fair path.



At one time a man could desert his wife, toss her and the children-or just her, out of the house...a married woman who was childless( or the couple's child(ren)died) could be pretty much on her own if a divorce occurred, and she would have to get by as best she could( this actually happened to one of my grandmothers).


Sad but true. Sometimes this happened for no valid reasons - like husband has mistress... and sometimes for good reasons - like wife cheated.

The thing that never seem to reach day of light is that currently some divorced men are in this predicament.

I mean, a divorced woman has the ex-husband (if he makes more money) as partial backup. The ex husband has no such backup.



So yes, in theory, it seems like the financial and legal aspects of marriage should and ought to be taken out of the equation.


Or just make them fair.

However, the less the government is involved in personal affairs, the better. So if marriage, the legal contract is not abolished, then make it fair. And if abolished, then so much better.


But actually the financial and legal aspects came BEFORE the love/emotional committment component of the marriage contract


Men have loved women before the invention of money, laws, or the idea of marriage - and probably before the emergence of language.
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 494
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/13/2011 12:57:19 PM

OK-and this whole thread is about YOU, YOUR exes, YOUR life...?
That's odd, according to the title it's about the reasons for getting legally married.


Nope but the experiences are what I draw off of just like you referring to your grandmother.


BUt you seem to have taken it as your own personal narrative to describe your failed marriages and relationships,which you have come out of essentially with little socio-economic damage.
And you jump on any excuse( like one poster not knowing the exact sequence of events in your relationships and parenthood)to go into it again.


She ask for clarification. Again read unto comprehension and you wouldn't have these problems.


I'm sorry,but I have to disagree. In my OPINION,rather than recognize and acknowledge the emotional pain, you've devoted yourself to the task of protecting your assets and assigning blame for the failure of your previous relationships.


And the thread topic is NOT about your opinions of anyone. And just so you understand I don't care what your opinion of me is. I am fine with myself my friends seem to like me soooooo why would you think your opinion of me is a concern of mine?


I do not disagree with anyone protecting their assets-especially when there are children involved that one would like to leave something to-but why not construct that protective plan when you actually have a specific situation in front of you? Instead you have pretty much concluded that any marriage you have is going to fail so you are busy creating protections against every conceivable contingency-and then tossing in the "this will work to protect HER assets too!" to "prove" that you are being fair-minded.


So your whole problem with my contingency is I already have it thought through?
Do you realize how moronic that sounds?

And I haven't tossed in anything the protection of each persons assets was there to start with.


Control of situations,circumstances,the dynamics of a relationship...


So I am to have no say in my relationship? She is the only one allowed that?
It would have to be an agreement between us both. HELLO! She has the right and free will to say no I don't want this.....I have the same right and free will to say I do want it.

If there is no agreement then there is no problem. If we agree then why is your knickers in a bunch about it?


Really-the one that married the guy she cheated on you with-that has a good job AND gets an allowance from her present husband? Going by your standards, she BETTERED herself financially-so why would she say such a thing?


Now you have just asked for more details of my personal experiences after just above claiming I am taking over the thread with them.

I have already posted that go back and read as you obviously have not read unto comprehension.


It is still a subjective diagnosis and can be difficult to support-which is why SSD,SSI, and private disability insurances are more apt to deny or delay claims.


You do realize that you just bolstered the fact it was Bi-Polar by stating that they normally deny and delay claims,when I have already said she got SSI for being Bi-Polar?

Thanks for making my point. She had to go to at least three Dr's to get her SSI.



IMO, if they ever make backpedalling and Olympic sport, you would be a gold-medal winner.


I would never even think of taking your spot on that podium.


See what I mean-it's ALL ABOUT YOU? That message was in response to concerns expressed by another poster about the basis for dividing marital assets in the event of divorce. It was a general observation of the reasons why division of marital assets is the best way to ensure that the 2 partners of a marriage in dissolution do get half of the "fruits of their labor"-it is part of the legal/governmental premise that a married couple is "one". It is not a personal endorsement of the wedding vows.


It was just a point I saw I didn't make that about me I posted an opinion on a comment. I thought that is what we do here as participants. Get over yourself.


What about it? I honored it.
Are you saying now that it was your wives/SOs that severed the marriage/relationship, not you? How does that line up with your threats to prosecute them for adultery? Or did you do that in hopes of keeping the marriage together?
I'm not the one here writing a manifesto because I've experienced multiple failed marriages and relationships.In fact, I probably fit the description of "too picky" because I


They filed first I filed the adultery charges in answer to their demands of a 50% split.
Again you didn't read to comprehension and are asking for me to post more info of my personal experiences which you have castigated me for in this post.
Make up your mind please. Or better yet stay on topic and leave your opinion of me out of it.


This isn't about breaking vows-this is about the sociolegal premise that a married couple is ONE,that assets-and debts!- accrued belong to both of them. That in the event of a marriage dissolution(divorce) the "one" again becomes "two" and the accrued assets and debts need to be divided so that neither one is deprived of the "fruits of their labor" by the failure of the marriage.
Just as a specualtion, I wonder what would happen if the government took the assets and the children of a failed marriage,so that both man and woman rellly did have to start all over again-and their confiscated assets would be used to support the children, who would be raised by a neutral 3rd party? Just a "devil's advocate" exercise in suggesting other solutions to a problem.


So does this not cry out for a plan before hand so that IF the marriage doesn't work it can be followed?
So instead of bickering and backbiting they can just follow the per-agreed arrangement.

Your attack on me as a person shows just what kind of person you are.
From now on post anything you like about one of my points but leave the personal opinions of me out of it. Thank you.
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 495
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/13/2011 1:50:09 PM
Family law is considerably different in Canada, but varies from province to province.
I think we have a pretty fair system here, but I'm sure there are a few people that would disagree with me. No matter what anyone does or says, I'm sure there will be someone to complain.


While I would agree there is a "pretty fair" system here in Canada, I do see many instances where it's not "entirely" fair - to either gender. "Fair" doesn't necessarily constitute a 50/50 split, whether it be financially, materially or with respect to custody and/or child support. Every couple has a different dynamic with respect to at least one or all of those areas and a one shoe fits all formula isn't necessarily, and often isn't, equitable, fair or just.

When it comes to vows, they are thrown out the window as soon as divorce proceedings are entered into, "if" vows were even taken in the religious sense or "if" till death do us part, two become one or any other form of vows were taken. Not all marriages are based on religion and not all "vows" are the same at any rate.

Off Topic - One suggestion with respect to the debate: if it is believed the thread has become about an individual, rather than a topic, refrain from using the word "you" or an individual's nic when responding in order to avoid any perpetuation of that belief, or simply respond to the personal example without slinging mud directed right at an individual. When reading the posts, it does come across as accusatory that someone caused an individual to become bi-polar, drug addicted, money hungry, and any number of other near flaming comments. As far as I'm concerned that's as pertinent to the debate and personalized as it would be to state an individual was the cause of a spouse passing away before reaching a ripe old age - neither of which could be considered on topic but could well be considered inflammatory.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 496
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/13/2011 2:27:16 PM

While I would agree there is a "pretty fair" system here in Canada, I do see many instances where it's not "entirely" fair - to either gender. "Fair" doesn't necessarily constitute a 50/50 split, whether it be financially, materially or with respect to custody and/or child support. Every couple has a different dynamic with respect to at least one or all of those areas and a one shoe fits all formula isn't necessarily, and often isn't, equitable, fair or just.

True enough, and that could be said for all of life and not just what happens when couples split up. I understand that some guys have a legit complaint, but others simply do not. My niece's ex is a perfect example: he was very controlling throughout their 12-year relationship and towards the end of the relationship he was abusing drugs. He was in charge of the business, ignored and dismissed my niece's well-thought-out and sage advice, the business failed, he escaped into ever more drug abuse. Rent and food became scarce, and after two years of this my niece said "Get help or the relationship is over". He refused; and then physically attacked her. She got a restraining order but the court insisted that he had the right to see the kids, albeit supervised.

Now, he has a friend who is rather fanatical about men's rights and under his friend's tutelage he tried to persuade his kids to live with him by promising things he could never provide, frightened them by claiming he was dying, told them their mother was selling sex via the internet, blamed their mother for the relationship breakup and business failure. The friend was supposed to "supervise" the visits, but nonetheless the kids would come back to their mother angry and frightened because of Daddy's head games. Daddy pays no child support, claims to have no income - yet seems to have money to take the kids shopping for thing they don't need, and to drive a large, fancy truck. My niece can do nothing about any of this, because she doesn't have the money for a lawyer and because the "friend" is supporting and she suspects financing her ex's behavior, including paying for a lawyer for him.

No, the system isn't fair but men aren't the only ones suffering. Some guys just don't get that.
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 497
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/13/2011 2:44:20 PM

No, the system isn't fair but men aren't the only ones suffering. Some guys just don't get that.


Horror stories and injustices abound, don't they? I'll take your comment one step further and state that many women just don't get that either which = many people just don't get it. In the story of your neice, it certainly would have been advantageous to her if she had a prenup, rather than both her and her children being forced to put up with the financial and emotional fall-out post marriage.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 498
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/13/2011 3:24:25 PM
What legal evidence is there backing up this claim? Is it even in the legal system as a justification for anything, for the split of assets?

The IRS, for one, is an example of a married couple being considered as one unit. At one time, a woman was pretty much absorbed into her husbands' identity-to the extent that any property or assets she had became his-to do with as he wished. She could not claim ownership of HIS property. I think that some of the "a married couple is one unit" presumption has changed to permit women to enter into business/financial contracts, borrow money, buy property or large ticket items, have her own bank accounts, credit cards,etc. Other aspects of law as it applies to gender and marriage issues just may not have caught up. Much of this was done-the laws about business/contracts/access to credit- as I understand it, because so often a married woman who became a widow or divorcee, had NO financial identity of her own, which could be an impediment to her becoming a self-supporting woman and get off the charity rolls-or so that her ex-husband could have a "closed end" alimony situation.
If a woman was faced with huge obstacles in becoming self-sufficient enough to actually better herself, after being widowed or divorced, then there was little incentive to even TRY. The answers seemed to be to STAY on the charity system, to keep drawing alimony-or entering into prostitution, even though it might be made legal by re-marrying. Don't misunderstand me, I am not supporting the radical allegation that marriage is prostitution, or suggesting that all remarriages occurred as a matter of survival for widowed or divorced women.

The quesiton is somewhat rhetorical because by "individual" the meaning of "one" is implied.

But until some recognition of women as individuals capable of independance was displayed by allowing married women to hold property, and to allow any woman to establish a business and credit history of her own, basically it was an individual- a man and his dependent "helpmate".

Legally, as far as I know, individual is one entity.

That is not how the IRS views a married couple-even if they both have income, file separate returns which is quite often apt to result in a larger tax liability-I know because I went over that issue with professional tax prepares when my husband was alive.)

If an individual is a one, and a married couple is a one, which one is more important?
It isn't a question of "importance". Its the way that certain aspects of the law regard a married couple. The IRS considers them to be "one", and whether or not anybody understands it-or likes it- the law regards that marital assets (and debts) as belonging jointly to the marital unit-two people that social custom and civil law have deemed to be "one"...because they chose to make that committment and sign that marriage license. The sense I'm getting, as I look at various sources of information, is that the "two become as one" is more of a Biblical precept-however, it seems that some secular institutions also adhere to it.
There is STILL an "out" that is available to everyone...don't GET married. Don't live together as a committed couple, because some jurisdictions will hold that relationship to be marriage, to all intents and purposes.All the division of assets in divorce does is try to make an equitable determination that each of the one that is now dividing back into two, gets a share of the fruits of the labor that accrued when they were one in the eyes of the IRS.

Now a person has to make the jump and justify why each individual in a marriage should forgo their own entitlement to the fruits of their labor in favor for that of the marriage - again marriage being a legal contract, or a social union.

I don't know about anybody else, but I for one am not trying to jump anywhere or justify anything-I am simply stating how the law views a married couple in matters of taxes and dividing up marital assets and debts in divorce.


I mean, a divorced woman has the ex-husband (if he makes more money) as partial backup. The ex husband has no such backup.

well, it has been mentioned several times by one poster, that there was a situation that garnered national media attention because some divorced wives who earned more/had more assets were required to pay alimony to their ex-husbands permanently.

Men have loved women before the invention of money, laws, or the idea of marriage - and probably before the emergence of language.

I do not dispute that,not at all! But once things like money, property,truces,the concept of "joining forces" with another family, clan, tribe, kingdom, inheritance,etc came into play,"love" often got set aside in the interest of a strategic or advantageous marriage to serve social, economic, or political ends.

I have tried not to "attack" anyone as a person, I have made observations when it seemed-in my opinion- like there might be a one-track devotion to one particular aspect of the reasons AGAINST marriage. I made ONE brief reference to a grandmothers divorce experience in the 1920s to illustrate a point of marriage/divorce history.
IMO, any person who seems to be unduly stuck in a one-track mindset or to have an obsession with something may have gotten stuck somewhere in the recovery/healing process-and sometimes I simply feel as though that possibility should be mentioned.

it does come across as accusatory that someone caused an individual to become bi-polar, drug addicted, money hungry,
The money-hungry thing was one posters'suggestion that there was a flawed attempt to MEASURE UP to the standard the woman percieved her spouse to have. As far as accusing someone of causing someone else's addiction or thought/mood disorder- I would not do such a thing and if I came across that way, I am sorry. Actually, I was trying to point out that the "bi-polar disorder" diagnosis may tend to be over-used, that an "appearance" of being bi-polar can come out of other illnesses or stressors. It was someone else insisting that the diagnosis was infallible.

No, the system isn't fair but men aren't the only ones suffering. Some guys just don't get that.

It is good that you brought this situation to light. A friend of mine has a grandaughter who was recently divorced and got NOTHING-not even visitation of her child. I got the impression that my friend believed this was an organized vendetta by her ex-grandson and his family, that they had "pull" with the local family/civil court system,etc. Obviously I do not know the divorcing couple-but the friend is one who tends to NOT practice taking a family' members word as gospel-just because they are family.

to pull the thread back on topic-reasons for getting legally married
from the Nolo website;

Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there's no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits -- both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes:

Tax BenefitsFiling joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer BenefitsReceiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.


Cindy O
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 499
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/13/2011 4:37:23 PM

The IRS, for one, is an example of a married couple being considered as one unit. At one time, a woman was pretty much absorbed into her husbands' identity-to the extent that any property or assets she had became his-to do with as he wished. She could not claim ownership of HIS property.


That would be a valid point if it was still like that. Today the couple has to agree to file jointly.

Either one can decide to file separate and that is the way it is done. Which renders the claim of the IRS backing "two becomes one" in marriage moot.


But until some recognition of women as individuals capable of independance was displayed by allowing married women to hold property, and to allow any woman to establish a business and credit history of her own, basically it was an individual- a man and his dependent "helpmate".


Again we are operating 50 years ago we are in the here and now. The division of asset laws need to be brought into the same time frame.


That is not how the IRS views a married couple-even if they both have income, file separate returns which is quite often apt to result in a larger tax liability-I know because I went over that issue with professional tax prepares when my husband was alive.)


If the married couple files separately from the start and never changes then the IRS can't go after the other for discrepancies. My ex did work for an accountant.


I don't know about anybody else, but I for one am not trying to jump anywhere or justify anything-I am simply stating how the law views a married couple in matters of taxes and dividing up marital assets and debts in divorce.


The couple sets the way the IRS views the couple and they have that choice. The division laws should reflect that same view. Yet it doesn't.



well, it has been mentioned several times by one poster, that there was a situation that garnered national media attention because some divorced wives who earned more/had more assets were required to pay alimony to their ex-husbands permanently.


Yes and that backs the claim the current laws favor the lower wage earners. At the current percentages of 70/30 it favors the gender that make less.

Hardly fair for the 70% is it?


I have tried not to "attack" anyone as a person, I have made observations when it seemed-in my opinion- like there might be a one-track devotion to one particular aspect of the reasons AGAINST marriage. I made ONE brief reference to a grandmothers divorce experience in the 1920s to illustrate a point of marriage/divorce history.
IMO, any person who seems to be unduly stuck in a one-track mindset or to have an obsession with something may have gotten stuck somewhere in the recovery/healing process-and sometimes I simply feel as though that possibility should be mentioned.


And in my opinion it is impossible to actually know if that is the case by a single stance on a single subject.


The money-hungry thing was one posters'suggestion that there was a flawed attempt to MEASURE UP to the standard the woman percieved her spouse to have. As far as accusing someone of causing someone else's addiction or thought/mood disorder- I would not do such a thing and if I came across that way, I am sorry. Actually, I was trying to point out that the "bi-polar disorder" diagnosis may tend to be over-used, that an "appearance" of being bi-polar can come out of other illnesses or stressors. It was someone else insisting that the diagnosis was infallible.


The word infallible was never used the fact that three trained state Dr's diagnosed the disease and that fact the state issued SSI was. The suggestions were there and could be posted but in the interest of peace they won't be quoted.


It is good that you brought this situation to light. A friend of mine has a grandaughter who was recently divorced and got NOTHING-not even visitation of her child. I got the impression that my friend believed this was an organized vendetta by her ex-grandson and his family, that they had "pull" with the local family/civil court system,etc. Obviously I do not know the divorcing couple-but the friend is one who tends to NOT practice taking a family' members word as gospel-just because they are family.


Some of this was in Canada and there laws are not the same here in the US so they may have a different system.

Here in the states either gender can go to DFACS Dept of Family and Children services to obtain child support. These people are ruthless and can have the absent parent carried to court w/o charge to the custodial parent.

Getting custody is up to the person and for a woman to loose custody is extremely rare of the 10% of fathers that do go for custody less than 1% obtain it. I have seen mothers that are know crackheads retain their kids.

I am glad to see the thread get back on track and civility return.
 x_file
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 500
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/13/2011 5:51:47 PM

The IRS, for one, is an example of a married couple being considered as one unit.


I asked these two questions in order for a reason:


One unit? And if so, unit of what?


The question still stands, unit of what?

If the answer is a "legal unit", then lets look at what justification there is for that. What legal justification is there for claiming a married couple become as one?

If they simply become as one legally, for accounting purposes on the part of the IRS, or simply because they put their autograph on a nice piece of paper, then that doesn't mean very much and certainly doesn't justify the 50/50 split.

This is not a case of "becoming" but rather a case of "considered as" one - which anyone can do with anything.

The problem with claiming "two become as one" or in this case "two people become one legal entity" therefore 50/50 split is plagued with the same problems the teamwork claim earlier:

Consider: A corporation is also a legal entity - a unit of one. The guy sweeping the floors is part of that legal entity, and so it the CEO, but again, the CEO gets paid more.

There is also another problem which I already hinted at:

Legal entities are logical entities... and almost anything can enter logical unity: my house + me + my car = one legal unit to an insurance company.

I hope my car doesn't ask for 50/50!



That is not how the IRS views a married couple-even if they both have income, file separate returns which is quite often apt to result in a larger tax liability-I know because I went over that issue with professional tax prepares when my husband was alive.)


Okay.

Why does the IRS consider a married couple as one unit? And what type of unit is it?



It isn't a question of "importance". Its the way that certain aspects of the law regard a married couple. The IRS considers them to be "one", and whether or not anybody understands it-or likes it- the law regards that marital assets (and debts) as belonging jointly to the marital unit-two people that social custom and civil law have deemed to be "one"


It is a question of importance when it affects how the fruit of your labor is divided.

I don't care much about the law in so far as it informs me of what is right or wrong, fair or unfair. I like to think for myself.

Also it is worth pointing out the following:

A) The IRS considers a married couple to be "one" - one legal unit, one logical unit, one unit to manage, one tax unit, whatever - it doesn't matter, just lets suppose it is true.

B) The legal court system considers them as "two ones", as two individuals - if the husband commits murder the wife does not go to jail if she was innocent. If they are truly "one" both should go to jail regardless of which one committed murder.

C) A and B contradict which again raises concerns of how much of this is simply made up.

D) If you are simply pointing out what some corporation sees/considers a married couple as, then okay. But if you are using that as an argument as to why a married couple is "one" and thus entitled to a 50/50 split, that argument is weak, not to mention I just pointed out a contradiction in how the legal system see a married couple.



...because they chose to make that committment and sign that marriage license.


There is it again.. commitment and marriage being blended, and morphed into one.

If a man believes the way to commit to a woman is by singing the marriage contract, he knows little or nothing about commitment.

Let me put it this way:

True commitment, for lack of a better phrase, happens in the heart. It is a type of devotion that NO CONTRACT or even DEATH can put in place or remove from a person's soul.

Socrates had this type of commitment towards philosophy - and even died for it.

So can we please, once and for all, stop the bullshit about commitment and marriage. No one needs marriage to commit to someone.



The sense I'm getting, as I look at various sources of information, is that the "two become as one" is more of a Biblical precept-however, it seems that some secular institutions also adhere to it.


Okay.

I am not so much interested in the origin of the claim, but rather its truth, or what justifies it.

And I already suspected a biblical origin.



I don't know about anybody else, but I for one am not trying to jump anywhere or justify anything-I am simply stating how the law views a married couple in matters of taxes and dividing up marital assets and debts in divorce.


Cool with me - so long as you got the facts right.

However, in post 549 it appears to me you were trying to make, or suggest a possible argument, namely: two people become one legal entity, therefore 50/50 split (roughly put)
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?