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
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 601
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?Page 25 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)

They don't always have control of whether they get pregnant or not


Actually they do and they sure have the sole discretion if they stay pregnant.


in spite of all the various forms of birth control available to them. Men have the same choices available to them or refrain from sexual activities and the stupid little social games that people play.


There are many more forms of birth control that women can use than men have available.

That stance has no merit.

********************************************************************************

c4 wrote...


The hell he don't. It's called "keeping your d*ck in your pants."

If men can tell women "Hey don't cout on us for anything but poking fun-don't get married and don't have kids",then I think women are perfectly entitled to tell them to keep their d*cks in their pants.
Sauce. Goose. Gander.


And that is why I have had a vasectomy. I know I don't want any more kids and I did the responsible thing.

However once pregnant the choice is solely the females choice. Not saying that should change or giving an opinion on abortion. Just stating fact.


Are you suggesting that it's FINALLY coming to light-that men really have no more care for children than a tomcat has for the kttens he's fathered(that he just might kill)? Or a male bearfor his cubs(that he just might kill)?
Do tell. In other words, for men it's just all about getting off and let someone else deal with whatever consequences may result?

Do tell.
There you have it, ladies. It's all about the weiner.

Thank HEAVEN not all men feel this way..."gimme sex, but if there's kids, yer on yer own,lady!"


I know many fathers that are the only support for their children. The mothers are not even in the childrens lives.

So the exact same thing can be said for them.


You can throw in all the "some,not all" BLATHER AND WHITEWASH you want to-but you are revealing the incredible extent of your DAMAGE every time you hit "post".


I'm damaged because I point out the laws that put the baby making choice in the females hands?

Wonder what happened to the truce?


NO, dude. Its' the law, that if a man's d*ck had a hand(so to speak) in the creation of a child, the CHILD is owed the support and care of both parents.


I didn't say anything about child support. She claims the man owes the woman for having the baby. Money paid to her for her not support of the child.

See....


6.7 years of your life......husband/father of children retains his income level and experiences no break or lack of service in the paid workforce and continues to earn $345,752.00 over 6.7 years. Bride/mother gives up $21.33 hourly x 2080 hours annually = $44, 366.40 x 6.7 years of her life = $297, 254.88 to be a stay-at-home mother until children are of elementary school age.


Now whom is being deceitful?

She was saying the man owes the woman money for her decision to have kids. Nothing was mentioned about child support.

*****************************************************************************

UnixGrand wrote...


Ouch!! mjyawn67.... your turn. [I am in utter anticipation now].


Ahhh there is many other ways to protect assets. Offshore accounts. A trust set up before marriage ect ect.

No ouch at all just different planning to do the same thing.
******************************************************************************
Chameleonf wrote.....


Somehow I'm picturing Amazon Women and sperm banks and The Best Little Whorehouse in Wherever as a future if this gender war progresses.


I think the sperm banks are a great idea......The normal pay for a deposit is $600.00 and the depositors are exempt from any attempt of her getting money because she wanted a child.

*****************************************************************************
woobytoodsday wrote....


I'm confoosed, lol! I basically thought that most normal healthy people wanted children. To that end, in a marriage (a safety cage for the littles), the couple both agreed that the woman should use her body to accomplish that although the process could risk her life. She is the one that puts up with the nausea, the nerve damage, changes to her blood, and labor. The lack of sleep, the hormone changes, the possibility of eclampsia. Then the kiddle arrives, and she nurses him/her for six months or a year. She may give up her job to do so. Which usually both parents agree to. If not, she usually ends up working two full time jobs: paid and mothering. She basically trashes her resume in the process, either way. If the marriage works, fine. If it doesn't, *usually* the woman spends X amount of time finishing up the raising thing, while "suffering" the fact that many to most men will not be interested in helping her. She's damaged goods for X years til the kids are on their own. And for this, all this, she deserves *NOTHING*? I know a woman who spent her working life raising four children. She gets $56/month from Social Security. She's now seventy, and still working. Looks like she'll be working till she dies.


Which she knows full well going into the agreement. So if she finds child rearing so objectionable why agree?

That is my point she has complete control over whether or not to do so.

So why would the man be responsible to pay her to make a baby when it is a choice she makes?

****************************************************************************

c4 wrote....

Again a little comprehension would help a lot.

Sorry....just couldn't pass up the opportunity.
Actually, what's crossing my mind is all the wisdom about not arguing with a fool because bystanders might not be able to tell which was which, about being a bigger person than to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent,etc...
And what's that the Bible says about "better to meet with a bear robbed of her cubs, than a fool in his folly"...
But when I hear such disinformation as "women think men owe them for having children" when its' the CHILDREN that are owed, by family law in the US and Canada-I have to speak up and point out the disinformation-or, to be charitable, the misunderstanding.

Child support was NOT mentioned in her claim for money from the man but actual pay for having a baby she wants.

Her request that women get paid for babies.....

6.7 years of your life......husband/father of children retains his income level and experiences no break or lack of service in the paid workforce and continues to earn $345,752.00 over 6.7 years. Bride/mother gives up $21.33 hourly x 2080 hours annually = $44, 366.40 x 6.7 years of her life = $297, 254.88 to be a stay-at-home mother until children are of elementary school age.


See she wants the man to pay her not child support.


and not manage to co-mingle assets, earnings, monetary windfalls. It would require a ridiculous amount of book-keeping-and scorekeeping.


No more than they had when they were single each just keeps their own accounts.


A marriage that is working can truly be an example of something being greater that the sum of its' parts-of synergy, of united hearts and minds.If both people are just all wrapped up in making sure they don't lose anything in the divorce thats' sure to come, how in the hell can they set mutual goals and aspirations, and then work together to achieve them?


Sapiens instruo pro bellum in a vicis of pacis.......wise men(people) prepare for war in a time of peace.

Doing so has prevented many wars and if unavoidable they were prepared for it.
 valenciacityx
Joined: 3/10/2009
Msg: 602
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/18/2011 4:55:08 PM
Actually get , as a guy - go get FIXED it will weed out the baby mill starter wife pantomime - and if she hits you up for child support ;) you can smile cuz you know it aint yours !

We should get married !
Why
I am pregnant
You should pack your shiate and leave now
Why
I am fixed - have been for decades. that aint my bun in your oven
Curb-> Kick -> Next !

(but I thought you just meant you didnt want to have kids, I didnt know you were FIXED ! ummm I did say that I am NEVER having kids. So who was dishonest in this exchange?)
I have dodged that bullet 3 times now.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 603
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/18/2011 5:07:33 PM
And that is why I have had a vasectomy. I know I don't want any more kids and I did the responsible thing.

But you are just one person-not all men, probably not even "most"men.Why do you keep making this thread about YOU???

These forums are supposed to be discussed as primarily general topics. Of course a persons' contributions are going to color their input, and there is nothing wrong with anecdotal input if it helps illustrate a point, a concern,an example of a situation.
But for a person to respond to every other posters' comments, observations, citation of information from another source, with responses that suggest that this person, or persons, think that every post is specifically about him,her,or them, does little promote or help GENERAL discussions.When most participants start feeling like they now have WAAY more information about the details of a particular individuals life, personal business,etc, I would be inclined to think(now this is my INCLINATION to THINK-it is not a "fact" , is not a flawed study pulled from a misandrist website) that it tends to impact the overall quality of the thread.

However once pregnant the choice is solely the females choice.

I think most people here KNOW that. Why does it need to be
A)brought up at all
B) disclaimed that it is fact, and not someones' support or opposition-when everybody KNOWS its a fact.

I know many fathers that are the only support for their children. The mothers are not even in the childrens lives.

amazing. I know situations like that TOO. And situations were the man is like 60K behind on child support and trying to duck getting caught.Also situations where people are happily married and raise their kids together, or a couple that, although divorced, have agreed to co-parent to the best of their abilities given the situation. I mentioned the tomcat/male bear thing when there seemed to be some whine being pressed about women making the choice to have kids so that men would be obligated to HER. The OBLIGATION is about the KIDS.

I'm damaged because I point out the laws that put the baby making choice in the females hands?
No, it's that someone felt the need to repeat this several times, when it's something that everyone here KNOWS and has known since Roe v.Wade.

She claims the man owes the woman for having the baby. Money paid to her for her not support of the child.

IF a woman in a married or committed relationship has been out of the workforce raising a child(ren), and the marriage fails, she may need some money coming in from somewhere until she gets back up to speed-or that factor may affect the equitable division of marital assets.
It is still an undeniable, irrefutable, unalterable fact that it is the woman who gestates the child(which can pose risks to her health) gives birth to the child( some risk there, too)and nurture the newborn...I have yet to see or hear about a man breastfeeding a newborn baby.
Yes, the baby can be put on a schedule and the woman can return to work as soon as her employers' policy allows. But unless there is a conscious and conscientious effort made to be sure that all other child-rearing responsibilities are equally divided, "the mommy track" has a significant tendency to affect a womans' income and her work record. I'm speaking here, of a broad overview of women in the workplace, not just women in white collar jobs, or jobs that lend themselves to flex-time, working at home etc.

She was saying the man owes the woman money for her decision to have kids.
No, I don't think she was-I believe she was simply illustrating with NUMBERS,how having children tends to affect a woman's earning power, her momentum in her occupation,it shows the MONEY SHE LOSES by having children.
Now, are you suggesting that ALL women simply bulldoze their will onto their husbands, that the husband/father NEVER wants children. Could we infer that someone didn't WANT their children, didn't want to be a father but a woman forced it on him??? If that is truly the case behind some of the various posters various rantings here,perhaps those on the opposing side could have a bit of appreciation for where they are coming from.
I can only suggest that if a man's wife insists on getting pregnant even though he wants her to keep working and have an uninterrupted work history-that when she reveals she's pregnant he should IMMEDIATELY file for divorce and flee the jurisdiction. Or maybe he can accuse her of getting pregnant by another man,or something.
How DARE a woman take a man's sperm and use it to financially enslave him.
Is THIS the point you are trying to make? Women deserve economic punishment for having children? I'm not going to go into what this opinion MIGHT suggest about how SOME men who believe this REALLY feel about their kids.

Ouch!! mjyawn67.... your turn. [I am in utter anticipation now].


Ahhh there is many other ways to protect assets. Offshore accounts. A trust set up before marriage ect ect.

Unix-we have got to quit pulling a certain posters' leg, or he's going to be walking lopsided for the rest of his life.

Somehow I'm picturing Amazon Women and sperm banks and The Best Little Whorehouse in Wherever as a future if this gender war progresses.


I think the sperm banks are a great idea......The normal pay for a deposit is $600.00 and the depositors are exempt from any attempt of her getting money because she wanted a child.

Why am I not one bit surprised by this comment? If Amazon women take over the world, they might abolish the system that allows men to be compensated for his sperm. After all, it's a woman's own damn fault if she decides to have a child, she is not entitled to any recompense to the effect it has on her earning power. so why should men be compensated for jerking off in a paper cup???

My understanding is that what was being discussed was an equalization of financial matters to reflect the earnings loss associated with gestation, childbirth and child rearing...division of marital assets in a divorce is part of that equation.

No more than they had when they were single each just keeps their own accounts.

I'm sorry, but if you REALLY believe this can happen, you must have had extremely short marriages.

Sapiens instruo pro bellum in a vicis of pacis.......wise men(people) prepare for war in a time of peace.

I can't help it, I have this vision running thru my brain of a woman about to commit adultery saying

"Sic semper tyrannus"
( hint, it's from Shakespeare and it's said in relation to an assassination,but I don't see why
it couldn't be applied to marital infidelity-in fact I bet somewhere in the course of human history it has been used for that purpose.
JMO.
Cindy O
 RazzleRoadRunner
Joined: 4/13/2007
Msg: 604
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/18/2011 5:13:49 PM
If men don't want to get married, or be responsible for children.........but want lots of sex, there are some males who would be very happy to date you!

But then, you might have to enter a GAY PARADE or move to New Orleans or San Francisco.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 605
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/18/2011 5:29:30 PM

But then, you might have to enter a GAY PARADE or move to New Orleans or San Francisco.

Nah, they're everywhere and I have absolutely no quarrel with that. I have a male cousin who is gay, we all treated his longterm partner as a member of the extended family, just the same as we with assorted step-kids, unmarried SOs,etc.
There is just the cutest couple of middle-aged men right here in my village, they do catering/ food concession at various local events,among other things.
Yup, no kidding, a committed LTR of 2 middle-aged gay men, right here in middle class, middle-age, conservative mid Michigan.
Let me hasten to assure everyone, the wedding at the village park gazebo was between a man and a woman-at least it certainly APPEARED to be a heterosexual couple.
Cindy O
 RazzleRoadRunner
Joined: 4/13/2007
Msg: 606
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/18/2011 5:53:58 PM
I don't have an issue with gay people either........one of my male friends is gay and he wants to get married, but nobody wants to marry him. I think it's because he's got a "sexual addiction." Yup....even gay people have obsessions and addictions, just like heterosexuals.

Anyway, just was trying to make the point that if men can't and won't respect the female body form, then there is another alternative........maybe they can learn to respect the male body form and/or themselves. Whichever the case may be!!
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 607
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/18/2011 6:51:34 PM

But you are just one person-not all men, probably not even "most"men.Why do you keep making this thread about YOU???


Wasn't trying to just giving an example of being responsible.

I realize you don't like me and well to bad I am going to respond to any post I choose.


I think most people here KNOW that. Why does it need to be
A)brought up at all
B) disclaimed that it is fact, and not someones' support or opposition-when everybody KNOWS its a fact.


Because it debunks the bullpucky that triple r was posting about men owing women money for having babies.


Why am I not one bit surprised by this comment? If Amazon women take over the world, they might abolish the system that allows men to be compensated for his sperm. After all, it's a woman's own damn fault if she decides to have a child, she is not entitled to any recompense to the effect it has on her earning power. so why should men be compensated for jerking off in a paper cup???


Did you miss the little dude rolling on the floor laughing? It was a joke!

Though you do have to admit that there are sperm banks that pay men for deposits and charge women for being inseminated.
So it looks as the free market has spoken on who is looking to get babies.


My understanding is that what was being discussed was an equalization of financial matters to reflect the earnings loss associated with gestation, childbirth and child rearing...division of marital assets in a divorce is part of that equation.


And I am saying it shouldn't be. Why should a man have to pay his wife to have kids that she wanted as well. Knows the cost to her before hand and still chooses to do so.
Doesn't she have as much responsibility as the man? I mean isn't she the one that has to make the final decision?


I'm sorry, but if you REALLY believe this can happen, you must have had extremely short marriages.


I could answer that but I don't want to make the thread about me!


( hint, it's from Shakespeare and it's said in relation to an assassination,but I don't see why
it couldn't be applied to marital infidelity-in fact I bet somewhere in the course of human history it has been used for that purpose.
JMO.


Actually you have that wrong as well.....
History

The phrase is attributed to Marcus Junius Brutus, the most famous figure in the assassination of Julius Caesar on March 15, 44 BC; however, it is more probably a later dramatic invention, as Roman historians of the period did not record it.[citation needed] In American history, John Wilkes Booth shouted the phrase after shooting President Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1865, in part because of the association with the assassination of Caesar.[1][2] Timothy McVeigh was wearing a T-shirt with this phrase and a picture of Lincoln on it when he was arrested on April 19, 1995, the day of the Oklahoma City bombing


So it is from real life not Shakespeare.

the accurate translation is....Sic semper tyrannis is a Latin phrase meaning "thus always to tyrants." It is sometimes mistranslated as "death to tyrants" or "down with the tyrant." The phrase is said to have originated with Marcus Junius Brutus during the assassination of Julius Caesar. It was later shouted by John Wilkes Booth during his assassination of Abraham Lincoln. It is also the official motto of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

So tell me why would someone use it while committing adultery?

****************************************************************************

triple r wrote...

If men don't want to get married, or be responsible for children.........but want lots of sex, there are some males who would be very happy to date you!

But then, you might have to enter a GAY PARADE or move to New Orleans or San Francisco.


Or get a vasectomy and when told I am pregnant......we can say I am so happy for you who's the father......then when she says you.......we can say sorry but no baby jackpot here!

The other poster that said he has had this happen 3 times I have no trouble believing as I have had it happen to me since my last divorce.


Anyway, just was trying to make the point that if men can't and won't respect the female body form, then there is another alternative........maybe they can learn to respect the male body form and/or themselves. Whichever the case may be!!


Please tell us how men should "respect the female body form"?
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 608
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/19/2011 8:55:08 AM
First of all,let me clarify something.
I believe it IS relevant to the topic of "reasons to get married" -to respond to those who are trying to portray marriage as a legal device used by women to take advantage of a man's enjoyment of sex, to take his sperm,and use it to financially enslave him. That is as offensive as women who portray it as men manipulating women(for economic survival or UPGRADE of lifestyle)-into a lfe of being sex servant, baby machine and household drudge.
While I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that marriages DO generate from such f*cked-up motives, I seriously doubt that itcould be considered the norm. Remember-we are talking about a 50% success rate...and I have the impression that "half succeed, half fail" statistics is based on ALL recorded marriages,and that the higher failure rate of 2nd and subsequent marriges is not factored into that. Even if I'm incorrect and the oft touted statistic IS referring to first marriages only, it still reflects that half of those first marriages survive.I'm using "survive" intentionally, because I am sure there are marriages existing that are nothing but a facade. I'm also pretty convinced that divorce is not always "proof" of marriage "failure".When 2 people admit that they can no longer remain married to each other,and work out between themselves the division of assets, debts and parental responsibilities(where applicable),and GET ON with their lives, I'm not sure that "failure" is the right word to use.
Marriage, in and of itself,is a ceremony and contract pertinent to a specific form of human partnership/co-endeavor. Marriage, in and of itself, whether religious, civil, performed by a ships' captain, a judge, a minister, priest, rabbi,imam, shaman, tribal or clan elder, or any combination thereof,is not in itself goodor evil, fair or unfair, oppressiveor uplifting, enslaving or empowering.It's the 2 people who take the vows and sign the "contract" who make it what it is for that particular couple.
Again, from the nolo.com 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 Benefits
Filing 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 BenefitsObtaining 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
iling 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.


[quot]Because it debunks the bullpucky that triple r was posting about men owing women money for having babies
I think that is YOUR INTERPRETATION of some other posters comments and observations.
The way I interpret it, is that they were speaking to how the "equitable division of assets" might apply to the dissolution of a marriage where there are children. It reflects a fairly common scenario where it was the wife who experienced a slower progression to maximum earnings, experienced interruptions in her work history, or perhaps put her work history and PERSONAL EARNINGS on hold because it was better for the FAMILY that she had no other significant claim on her time and energy. Believe it or not, I suspect that there would be a similar recognition of prioritizing family first, for a stay-at-home-dad. It's not about anybody OWING anybod else for having/raising children,simply an acknowledgement that one of the marriage partners may well have traded a certain amount of career progression,steady work history,and personal earnings to tending children and the household.It's not about men owing women for having babies.
If the woman did, in fact, somehow trick or deceive her husband into fathering children he was opposed to having,the man has options. He can file for divorce immediately. He can put legal action in place to disprove that it is his child, if that applies. I'm sure he can argue in front of a mediator, referee or court, that he did not want the children,and that his wife simply ignored his wishes. NOW-if a man makes that argument, then tries to pursue physical custody of the children to evade paying child support,he's going to look like an ASS of the first degree.
I wonder if that happens more than is generally realized...or there is simply a large contingent of men who believe that they've been bitten in their financial butt by their own ego-and d*ck?



Though you do have to admit that there are sperm banks that pay men for deposits and charge women for being inseminated.
So it looks as the free market has spoken on who is looking to get babies.

And if this is really true, how come all we ever seem to hear about is women enticing and tricking men into involuntary fatherhood? Or attempting to do so? Doesn't sound to me like that proves anything except that some women love babies but hate men and will pay well to have a baby without any male firsthand involvement.As far as I am concerned, it's simply just another option for a person to have a child without an opposite-sex partner being personally involved.
While not common, there are situations of same-sex-couples of both genders becoming parents through ,AI and/or surrogacy, or some other type of 'renting a womb". I think that's where you see the "free market has spoken on who is looking to get babies"



And I am saying it shouldn't be. Why should a man have to pay his wife to have kids that she wanted as well. Knows the cost to her before hand and still chooses to do so.
Doesn't she have as much responsibility as the man? I mean isn't she the one that has to make the final decision?

If a man is faced with the situation of his wife having conceived a child that he was opposed to having, he should immediately file for divorce...so what's the problem? A man who is enthusiastic about, or at least willing to be a father, doesn't get to go back later, in divorce proceedings, and claim fatherhood was forced on him, in order to "protect assets".

Granted, even an immediate divorce filing may not get a man off the hook for child support, but at least he doesn't spend years PRETENDING to be a happy father.



Actually you have that wrong as well.....

History

The phrase is attributed to Marcus Junius Brutus, the most famous figure in the assassination of Julius Caesar on March 15, 44 BC; however, it is more probably a later dramatic invention, as Roman historians of the period did not record it. In American history, John Wilkes Booth shouted the phrase after shooting President Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1865, in part because of the association with the assassination of Caesar.
Timothy McVeigh was wearing a T-shirt with this phrase and a picture of Lincoln on it when he was arrested on April 19, 1995, the day of the Oklahoma City bombing


So it is from real life not Shakespeare.

the accurate translation is....Sic semper tyrannis is a Latin phrase meaning "thus always to tyrants." It is sometimes mistranslated as "death to tyrants" or "down with the tyrant." The phrase is said to have originated with Marcus Junius Brutus during the assassination of Julius Caesar. It was later shouted by John Wilkes Booth during his assassination of Abraham Lincoln. It is also the official motto of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

wow, nice googling.
I spoke of it being from Shakespeare because "it is attributed to Brutus." And because


The phrase is said to have originated with Marcus Junius Brutus during the assassination of Julius Caesar

I happen to KNOW of the phrase's presence in a
Shakespeare play because I've READ the play( in fact it is a favorite of mine).
So don't try to claim "attributed to" or "said to have" is historical fact. What was that about MY 'facts being wrong'?
Pfft.



So tell me why would someone use it while committing adultery?

You really don't get that???
Perhaps because a woman committing adultery against a control freak husband is symbolically assassinating, if not the husband exactly, the tyrannical marriage?
Anyway that was something that occurred to me as perhaps being behind SOME of the cases of female adultery,even if the ostensible( or preferred) interpretation in some cuckolded husbands' minds, was that it was done for some kind of social, financial,or career advancement.
(That career advancement -or career preservation-idea might be a valid basis in some cases, otherwise why do we have all these workplace sexual harrassment statutes?)


we can say sorry but no baby jackpot here!
I realize that there ARE devious women who do this, just like the man who used"I'm sterile" to con my sister-in-law into unprotected sex.
Despite the trickery, she had and raised the baby with a great deal of support from her father and stepmother, and the extended family. She has now been married for quite a while to a man who regards the boy as his own son, and the baby conceived in a lie, is becoming a fine young man.
However, I also have to say that I'm sorry for men who can't seem to attract a better quality of woman, than those who try to use pregnancy entrapment.



Please tell us how men should "respect the female body form"?

The men that 'get it' don't need instruction.
But it just makes me shake my head that there seem to be a fair-sized group(or maybe it's a small group that is very vocal/vociferous?) of men who hate and fear women, yet they have been married multiple times, fathered children that they perceive to be devices women use to get a man's money and assets- and yet here they are, with one hand holding their d*ck and the other shielding their wallets,on an internet dating site-because...????
And let me make that abundantly clear, the preceding statement was a general comment/observation, not directed to, or said about, any particular individual.
If someone sees themselves in it, I'm sorry. Not that I said it, but that someone sees themselves .
To the HAPPY fathers who may be reading/participating in this thread, I wish a happy Father's Day. For the ones decrying fatherhood as a female device to get mens' money, I say...meh.
Cindy O
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 609
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/19/2011 9:38:37 AM
For purpose of correcting HTML malfunction in my previous post;


Because it debunks the bullpucky that triple r was posting about men owing women money for having babies


is saidto have originated with Marcus Junius Brutus during the assassination of Julius Caesar


I happen to KNOW of the phrase's presence in a
Shakespeare play because I've READ the play( in fact it is a favorite of mine).
So don't try to claim "attributed to" or "said to have" is historical fact. What was that about MY 'facts being wrong'?
Pfft.






So tell me why would someone use it while committing adultery?

You really don't get that???
Perhaps because a woman committing adultery against a control freak husband is symbolically assassinating, if not the husband exactly, the tyrannical marriage?
Anyway that was something that occurred to me as perhaps being behind SOME of the cases of female adultery,even if the ostensible( or preferred) interpretation in some cuckolded husbands' minds, was that it was done for some kind of social, financial,or career advancement.
(That career advancement -or career preservation-idea might be a valid basis in some cases, otherwise why do we have all these workplace sexual harrassment statutes?)





we can say sorry but no baby jackpot here!

I realize that there ARE devious women who do this, just like the man who used"I'm sterile" to con my sister-in-law into unprotected sex.
Despite the trickery, she had and raised the baby with a great deal of support from her father and stepmother, and the extended family. She has now been married for quite a while to a man who regards the boy as his own son, and the baby conceived in a lie, is becoming a fine young man.
However, I also have to say that I'm sorry for men who can't seem to attract a better quality of woman, than those who try to use pregnancy entrapment.






Please tell us how men should "respect the female body form"?

The men that 'get it' don't need instruction.
But it just makes me shake my head that there seem to be a fair-sized group(or maybe it's a small group that is very vocal/vociferous?) of men who hate and fear women, yet they have been married multiple times, fathered children that they perceive to be devices women use to get a man's money and assets- and yet here they are, with one hand holding their d*ck and the other shielding their wallets,on an internet dating site-because...????
And let me make that abundantly clear, the preceding statement was a general comment/observation, not directed to, or said about, any particular individual.
If someone sees themselves in it, I'm sorry. Not that I said it, but that someone sees themselves .
To the HAPPY fathers who may be reading/participating in this thread, I wish a happy Father's Day. For the ones decrying fatherhood as a female device to get mens' money, I say...meh.
Cindy O
done to avoid any attempt to challenge or question my intelligence/competence, or attempt to undermine my comments.
 UnixGrand
Joined: 5/9/2011
Msg: 610
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/19/2011 10:04:09 AM

To the HAPPY fathers who may be reading/participating in this thread, I wish a happy Father's Day. For the ones decrying fatherhood as a female device to get mens' money, I say...meh.


Touché!!!
 x_file
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 611
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/19/2011 7:45:37 PM

Plato did not use Socrates as a metaphor for commitment in a relationship.


Neither did I.



I’m asking the author of a statement about commitment in relationships to more precisely define his position. If you’re unwilling to engage in a meaningful discussion on that subject then just say so - there’s no need to deflect.


A) The question you asked clearly had to do with philosophy NOT relationships.

B) I don't deflect.

My statement about commitment had more to do with the nature of commitment... a glimpse of what is commitment in itself, of the "seed of" commitment, of where it first begins.

Whether that commitment is towards a person, an idea, a job, a thing, a place, a diet, a gym, or else, is completely irrelevant.

So with that in mind, what can I possibly clarify for you? What is it that is not clear?

And why don't you define, and clarify your position on commitment?



There is a principle in setting division of assets, payment of alimony(if applicable) and child support( if applicable) that holds "living in the manner to which they have become accustomed".


I don't know if division of assets and child support is based on the principle you speak of, but I think alimony is.

There are tons or problems with this principle:

1) It immediately violates itself... it contradicts itself. Why?

Each person in a marriage is first and foremost accustomed to marriage. If the principle holds true, and each person deserves what they are accustomed to, by this principle, both people MUST remain married.

2) This principle applies nowhere else.

Marriage is the only contract that uses this principle to justify anything. This alone should raise red flags in a rational person.

3) The principle is one sided, and in favor of the lower earner. It penalizes the higher earner.

4) The principle defeats itself.

If the principle is true, and a person deserves everything they have become accustomed to, good or bad, then a person deserves nothing more than they have right now.

5) The principle is not natural.

Many people become accustomed to living, yet they all die. Nature provides no compensation to anyone for anything they have become accustomed to.

6) Clearly people let go of some of the things which they have become accustomed to... like marriage. If a person can let go of marriage, they can let go of everything else they have become accustomed to.

7) "Accustomed to" does not mean "entitled to".

8) If you become accustomed to something without compensation (like marriage), you can become accustomed to something else without compensation (like divorce).

My personal view on the matter: If you have become costumed to something, rather than seeking or demanding it from someone else, go and earn it yourself.



Believe it or not, I'm very inclined to agree with you, except I think that any children should be removed from the situation and placed to be raised by a 3rd party-let the proceeds of liquidating the unhappy ex-couples' assets go aid in that matter.


Yep. And both parties will pay equal amount of child support to this third party.



Let them both have a completely fresh start, with nothing to their name. I bet we'd see the divorce rate drop like a rock tossed over the edge of a cliff.


And so will the marriage rate. But the abuse rate will increase.



I don't know, x_file, if you have ever been married or in a cohabiting LTR, but while it looks good on paper, the concept of a married or co-habiting couple being able to keep their assets and income strictly separate, in reality, would be very difficult to put into practice.


On the contrary. It is extremely easy.



Conducting their lives in such a manner would surely shield individual incomes and assets, but why bother to get married then-separate domiciles, separate finances, divided children-pretty much renders marriage moot, doesn't it?


It does render marriage (the contract) moot. What's wrong with that?



You mean that unmarried cohabiting couples should be tried in a court of law and punished for participating in an illegal act?


No!

The government should be sued, and brought to court for binding two people with a contract without their written consent.

I'm sure it is unconstitutional to have a third party, without your consent, bind you to a contract.


How about some real fairness... Let the people getting married decide what is right for them. If they are dumb enough to want the government splitting their assets fine.


Real fairness would be to have each keep what she or he has earned and have the government, by default, enforce this, unless a prenup exists.

To each their own. That is fair. That is just. Again, unless otherwise agreed.

No woman should be taken advantage of or stolen from (referring to the marriage contract allowing for legal theft) because she is more ambitious, or harder working than her husband.

No man should be taken advantage of or stolen from (referring to the marriage contract allowing for legal theft) because he is more ambitious, or harder working than his wife.
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 612
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/19/2011 8:49:30 PM

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 Benefits...Estate Planning Benefits...Government Benefits...Medical Benefits...Death Benefits...Family Benefits...Housing Benefits...Other Legal Benefits and Protections...


What I find interesting by naming all these legal benefits is that they largely revolve around money. Joining forces contractually through marriage provides financial security. The particular forms of benefits differ state by state, country by country. If the reasons for getting legally married revolve largely around money and protection of assets - and people will even move to jurisdictions to get "the best deal" - I see no difference in obtaining yet another form of financial security "benefit" by way of ensuring, pre-marriage, that an individual's rights to protection of assets is ensured as well by any form of pre-nuptual contract that suits the two individuals involved. I don't see where "coercion" enters into it. If that's the case, one could state that people are coerced into marriage to obtain the above quoted benefits - it's no less of a "benefit" to the agreeing individuals as are those listed in the above quote. It would likely be more palatable if pre-nups were renamed to something like "pre-marital asset protection benefits". See, doesn't it sound a whole bunch rosier when you put a positive spin on the wording??
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 613
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/19/2011 8:54:16 PM

Real fairness would be to have each keep what she or he has earned and have the government, by default, enforce this, unless a prenup exists.

To each their own. That is fair. That is just. Again, unless otherwise agreed.

No woman should be taken advantage of or stolen from (referring to the marriage contract allowing for legal theft) because she is more ambitious, or harder working than her husband.

No man should be taken advantage of or stolen from (referring to the marriage contract allowing for legal theft) because he is more ambitious, or harder working than his wife.


I agree 100% so does some women even ones in the legal profession.

Take a moment and read this.....
Scrap the 50-50 divorce payouts that rob men, says law chief

By Steve Doughty

Last updated at 8:59 AM on 15th September 2009

Comments (10)
Add to My Stories
Share

The rich ex-wife: Heather Mills was awarded around £24m after four years of marriage to Paul McCartney

The rich ex-wife: Heather Mills was awarded around £24m after four years of marriage to Paul McCartney

Divorce settlements that keep ex-wives in comfort at the expense of their former husbands should be scrapped, a legal expert has said.

Baroness Deech condemned the doctrine of the divorce courts which says a divorced woman should get a half share of the couple's wealth.

It is unfair to men and demeaning to women, she said.

And she called for tougher divorce laws generally to protect children from the damage caused by family break-up.

Lady Deech, one of the country's most senior family lawyers, said 40 years of divorce law reform had increased the number of divorces and hurt families.

She said the idea of fault should be brought back into proceedings. Those who ask for a fast-track divorce on the grounds of adultery or unreasonable behaviour should be made to wait for 12 months before they can remarry or settle their maintenance.

Children, who learn about the dangers of smoking and poor diet at school, should also be taught about the value of marriage, she said.

Lady Deech spoke out after a series of multi-million-pound divorce payouts to wives who have been married to rich men for only a short time.

Last year Heather Mills, the former wife of Paul McCartney and mother of his daughter Beatrice, was awarded around £24million after four years of marriage.

Lady Deech said women of working age without young children to support should be expected to look after themselves.

And she blamed judges for creating a 'half-and-half' divorce law without any reference to Parliament.

Earlier this month a legal firm claimed that women are trying to get their divorces heard in the south of England and men in the north because of differing approaches to division of assets.

Northern courts apparently tend to hand out one-off 'clean break' settlements while southern judges are increasingly likely to give a lifelong income to a wife.


Now this lady is from England but the same 50% split of assets is there as well.

Now it seems this lady is educated and in the justice system and is saying the exact same thing x-File and I have been saying!

Imagine that?

So if women in the system are saying the system is unjust and needs the same adjustments that I and others have been saying.
What does that say about the ones claiming only damaged people would think this way?

Kinda pokes holes in that line of thought when a woman in the system makes the exact same recommendations!

The laws are outdated and the only ones that want it to stay the same are the ones that may benefit from them.

One of the great legal minds of England agree that the split in a divorce should be according to the income of each and NOT a 50/50 split.
Does that sound familiar ahhh yes I have said the same as has X-File.

Maybe we are just ahead of the curve here and thinking on a level some can't comprehend.

Lets weigh this out....Which is smarter to do agree with a prestigious legal mind of our age or agreeing with a random poster that has an agenda to preserve in a dating forum?

I think I would rather stand in the company of the prestigious mind.

As far as Shakespeare using the phrase I didn't say he didn't, I said it came from real life. And it did many centuries before he borrowed it for his play!
So your point is moot.
 x_file
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 614
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/20/2011 6:38:02 AM

Divorce settlements that keep ex-wives in comfort at the expense of their former husbands should be scrapped, a legal expert has said.


Absolutely. This "comfort at the expense of another" is called "leeching" - a behavior commonly associate with a parasite. It is also legal theft.

Of course, women who are receiving the settlements don't see it that way - and don't want to. And many have made up reasons as to why they deserve the settlement. However women who are paying out big settlements clearly do see it as legal theft, and are beginning to speak out.



Lady Deech said women of working age without young children to support should be expected to look after themselves.


Exactly.

We even expect children, after they reach certain age, to be self sufficient to some degree - like to be able take a shower on their own or put their lunch in their school bag before going to school.

The least one can expect of a grown healthy adult is for him or her to be able to support them self, to be, to a large degree, self sufficient.

The average man should smarten up and make better choices in terms of what type of woman he settles on for the long run. Men should only settle for women who have their head screwed-on properly. Unfortunately, many settle for "pretty", which is pretty dumb.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 615
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/20/2011 9:22:33 AM

divorce and separation: an overview
A divorce formally dissolves a legal marriage. While married couples do not possess a constitutional or legal right to divorce, states permit divorces because to do so best serves public policy. To ensure that a particular divorce serves public policy interests, some states require a "cooling-off period," which prescribes a time period after legal separation that spouses must bear before they can initiate divorce proceedings.

Courts in the United States currently recognize two types of divorces: absolute divorce, known as "divorce a vinculo matrimonii" and limited divorce, known as "divorce a menso et thoro". To obtain an absolute divorce, courts require some type of evidentiary showing of misconduct or wrongdoing on one spouse's part. An absolute divorce is a judicial termination of a legal marriage. An absolute divorce results in the changing back of both parties' statuses to single. Limited divorces are typically referred to as separation decrees. Limited divorces result in termination of the right to cohabitate but the court refrains from officially dissolving the marriage and the parties' statuses remain unchanged. Some states permit conversion divorce. Conversion divorce transforms a legal separation into a legal divorce after both parties have been separated for a statutorily-prescribed period of time.

Many states have enacted no-fault divorce statutes. No fault divorce statutes do not require showing spousal misconduct and are a response to outdated divorce statutes that require proof of adultery or some other unsavory act in a court of law by the divorcing party. Nevertheless, even today, not all states have enacted no fault divorce statutes. Instead, the court must only find 1) that the relationship is no longer viable, 2) that irreconcilable differences have caused an irremediable breakdown of the marriage, 3) that discord or conflict of personalities have destroyed the legit ends of the marital relationship and prevents any reasonable possibility of reconciliation, or 4) that the marriage is irretrievably broken.

Look to various state laws to determine the divorce law within a particular jurisdiction. The Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act may provide further guidance.

Property Division
Following a divorce, the court must divide the property between the spouses. Before legislatures equalized property allocation between both spouses, many divorce statutes substantially favored property allocation to the wage-earning spouse. These statutes greatly disadvantaged women disproportionately because during the 18th, 19th, and early-20th centuries, the participation of women in the workplace was much less than it has become during the latter-half of the 20th century and early part of the 21st century. The statutes failed to account for the contributions of the spouse as homemaker and child-raiser.

Modern courts recognize two different types of property during property division proceedings - marital property and separate property. Marital property constitutes any property that the spouses acquire individually or jointly during the course of marriage. Separate property constitutes any property that one spouse purchased and possessed prior to the marriage and that did not substantially change in value during the course of the marriage because of the efforts of one or both spouses. If the separate property-owning spouse trades the property for other property or sells the property, the newly-acquired property or funds in consideration of the sale remain separate property.

Modern division of property statutes strive for an equitable division of the marital assets. An equitable division does not necessarily involve an equal division but rather an allocation that comports with fairness and justice after a consideration of the totality of the circumstances. By dividing the assets equitably, a judge endeavors to effect the final separation of the parties and to enable both parties to start their post-marital lives with some degree of financial self-sufficiency. While various jurisdictions permit recognition of different factors, most courts at least recognize the following factors: contribution to the accumulation of marital property, the respective parties' liabilities, whether one spouse received income-producing property while the other did not, the duration of the marriage, the age and health of the respective parties, the earning capacity and employability of the respective parties, the value of each party's separate property, the pension and retirement rights of each party, whether one party will receive custodial and child support provisions, the respective contributions of the spouses as a homemaker and as a parent, the tax consequences of the allocations, and whether one spouse's marital misconduct caused the divorce. Most jurisdictions also give the family court judge broad jurisdiction by providing judges with the right to consider any other just and proper factor.

When assigning property, judges cannot transfer the separate property of one spouse to another spouse without the legislature having previously passed an enabling statute. Whether such an enabling statute exists varies between jurisdictions.

Alimony
Alimony refers to payments from one spouse to the other. A court can order one spouse to pay three different types of alimony - permanent alimony, temporary alimony, and rehabilitative alimony. Permanent alimony requires the payer to continue paying either for the rest of the payer's life or until the spouse receiving payments remarries. Temporary alimony requires payments over a short interval of time so that the payment recipient can stand alone once again. The period of time covers the length of the property division litigation. Similar to temporary alimony, rehabilitative alimony requires the payer to give the recipient short-term alimony after the property division proceedings have concluded. Rehabilitative alimony endeavors to help a spouse with lesser employability or earning capacity become adjusted to a new post-marital life.

Courts allocate alimony with the intention of permitting a spouse to maintain the standard of living to which the spouse has become accustomed. Factors affecting whether the court awards alimony include the marriage's length, the length of separation before divorce, the parties' ages, the parties' respective incomes, the parties' future financial prospects, the health of the parties, and the parties' respective faults in causing the marriage's demise.

If a couple had children together while married, a court may require one spouse to pay child support to the spouse with custody, but one should note that alimony and child support differ.

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
The legal termination of a marriage. All states require a spouse to identify a legal reason for requesting a divorce when that spouse files the divorce papers with the court. These reasons are referred to as grounds for a divorce.

And child support

child support: an overview
Child support refers to the sum that the noncustodial parent must pay to the custodian. This sum serves as a parental contribution for the child's basic living expenses, such as food, clothing, shelter, health care, and education. When a court orders a parent to pay child support, the parent must pay directly to the child's custodian rather than directly to the child. States generally do not impose an obligation to pay support for a child after that child has reached the age of 18.

An individual, however, only has a legal responsibility to support one's own biological children. Thus, a court cannot order an individual to pay child support for a stepchild, subject to the caveat that the individual did not formally adopt the stepchild. While the vast majority of states adhere to this rule, a few state statutes differ with regard to stepchild support. To determine the law in a particular jurisdiction, see state laws.

Trial courts determine the amount of the periodic installments for the parent to pay. The amount varies between cases, taking into account the unique circumstances of each case. Circumstances include the child's age, the particular health and educational needs of the child, and the standard of living that the child would have enjoyed if the family had continued living together. States differ on the exact methodology for calculating the amount of child support owed. Generally, however, courts will make specific findings regarding both the custodial and noncustodial parent's net monthly income. Many statutes require a parent to pay a set percentage of the parent's annual salary. Some statutes also require parents to pay a percentage of any bonuses received as well. The Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act requires parents to pay an amount reasonable or necessary to the for the child's support without regard to marital misconduct. Factors in determining reasonableness or necessity include the child's financial resources, the custodial parent's financial resources, the standard of living the child would have had if the marriage remained intact, the physical and emotional condition of the child and the child's particular educational needs, and the noncustodial parent's financial resources.

In addition to the periodic support payments, a court may order the noncustodial parent also to make contributions to future medical and dental expenses, vacation and camp expenses, and religious or private school costs. Jurisdictions are split regarding whether a noncustodial parent owes contributions to an 18-year-old college student seeking enrollment at a higher educational institution.

Jurisdictions also differ with regard to whether the death of an obligor extinguishes the obligor's future child support obligations.

Enforcement
Congress created the Federal Parent Locator Service partly to enforce child support obligations. The Service permits any authorized individual to obtain and transmit information regarding an individual under an obligation to pay child support or to whom another owes a child support obligation. Some states permit courts to impose wage withholdings on obligors in non-compliance. This process requires the employer to withhold a certain portion of the obligor's wages and turn them over to the obligee. If the employer fails to adhere to the order, the employer may be subjected to penalties. Courts also can hold the non-complying obligor in contempt of court, which may require that the non-complying obligor pay attorney's fees and court costs.

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
Financial and other support for children provided by the parents who are legally responsible for them. Most commonly, child support is ordered when parents divorce or separate and one parent is required to pay the other an amount of child support that is determined by state guidelines, based on the parents' incomes and the amount of time each parent spends with the child(ren). Support may also include paying for insurance benefits, school tuition, and other expenses. Child support is not deductible or taxable

From http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Divorce

(sarcasm (s)witch ON )Which I am sure MUST be a biased misandrist website(sarcasm(s)witch OFF)
The comments regarding the excerpt I've quoted previously- regarding how many of the benefits of marriage are concerned with money/finance/legal issues-point taken, but there is a reason I used that excerpt is BECAUSE the original topic question is in fact-and again I quote
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?




I also chose to post quotation from the source texts so that other posters can read without following a link.

Inasmuch as we keep veering off into "fair/unfair" "legal theft" etc,the OT asked about "reasons for getting legally married.
The OT does not contemplate prenuptial agreements, divorce, alimony, legal theft, fairness or unfairness.
here it is

Alright before I get going, I would like to point out there are two aspects to marriage:

1) Ceremony, exchange of vows, and religious rites

2) Legal formalities, including blood tests, getting permission from the state, government records, per-state laws regulating dissolution (i.e. divorce)

So, the reasons for getting married in the sense of #1 should be obvious. What I would like some thoughts on, are reasons for #2.

Specifically, what are the benefits and down-sides to getting married (i.e. "legally and financially entangled") in the sense of the equivalent of signing a binding contract that is legally enforcable by the government?

Open questions:

How does the man benefit?

How does the woman benefit?

Can these benefits be obtained without getting financially and legally entangled (i.e. formal marriage in the legal sense)?


I will concede that the end question-"open question" does refer to alternative methods of obtaining the benefits without getting legally and financially entangled.

Pre-nups are one method, no one is arguing that point.However, I am not sure how legally binding that might be in the face of an emotionally wounded,angry spouse with a sharp attorney determined to break it. Even if it's purported to be something else. I neither support or condemn "prenup breaking" legal manuevers- I simply want to note that this is a possibility.
Let me clearly state;
I am not at all opposed personally or philosophically to pre-nups. I'm trying to answer the questions posed in the OT. Those whose limitations cause them to try and suggest that I personally am against prenups and want divorce laws to continue to "favor" women,are badly mistaken.
A second observation regarding the questions posted in the OT;
Co-habitation MAY permit a pair-bonded couple to live as if married while retaining a more clearly delineated separation of assets. I say may, because there are jurisdictions that will treat co-habitation as "common law" marriage.
I also want to note,at this juncture, that the excerpts I posted are from Cornell University, which is located in the USA, to the best of my knowledge. Therefore they may not be applicable in their entirety for our neighbors to the north. Please don't post an insulting or condescending message suggesting that things are different in Canada. I know they are. I simply posted the most concise,understandable,unbiased information that I could find fairly quickly.
Anyone believing/suggesting that I spend "hours" looking stuff up are badly mistaken. Posting to forums is something I do to "take a break from other daily business, social and household concerns.

http://family-law.lawyers.com/divorce/Uniform-Dissolution-of-Marriage-Act.html
This webpage outlines the UMDA-the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act.
I am not going to post the entire article because a lot of it simply retreads material alreaduy covered by the excepts from Cornell Law webpages. It is also my understanding that UMDA has not been adopted in its' entirety by all 50 states.
The best advice that I believe a reasonable person would give regarding marriage,divorce,prenups,equitable division of assets,is that a person or couple contemplating marriage should consult their own state or provincial statutes.
As regards 'coercion' or what can resonbably be expected of an adult human being, it seems like those concepts could be situationally defined-which is why I mentioned "emotionally wounded,angry (STBX) spouse and a sharp lawyer.
As for a married couple keeping all assets and finacies strictly separate- one must remember that a spouse is NOT the exact same thing as a room-mate, that marriage is not the exact same thing as sharing a domicle with a relative or friend.
I can't help it, I have this vision of a married couple of disparate incomes, who despite prudence and common sense,fallen in love and gotten married. Scenario-suppertime. the higher earning spouse sits down at the table with a steak, the lower income spouse sits down at the table with a peanut-butter sandwich. The children are served a blend of cooked hamburger stirred into peanut butter on half of a hamburger bun. Separate finances.
They can't buy a house, or save for the childrens' college, they have to have separate vehicles.They take turns paying the daycare bill.They take turns by week in dealing with which end of the family dog eats and which end shits.They go boating as a family, the higher earner with a motor boat, the lower earning one with an aluminum rowboat, they toss the children back and forth so that they get equal time in the recreational activity that each parent can individually afford. They have divided the house in half-and live that way- so that the lower income spouse can better control utility costs. Aside from "meals" together, the children live 3&1/2 days in one half of the house and 3&1/2 days in the other. In the higher income half, they have cable TV, video games,internet access..in the lower-income half, they have reading, board games and outdoor paly and exercise...
Oh, I could go on and on-but I think everyone gets the picture.
No, marriage and divorce are not perfect...because they are human/social constructs and humans are not perfect.
Is there a way to get the benefits of marriage without the entanglements/drawbacks?
There MAY be-common-law marriage or very detailed and complex system of prenuptial agreements, LLCs, trusts, wherefores, as-is, where-is disclaimers, caveats, exceptions, exemptions and a batch of general "ifs, ands, or buts".
Don't want to take any risks? Stay single and serial date.

I have one "however"; in the case of a mature couple who have accumulated assets individually, have forged a "single person' lifestyle,etc, I honestly do believe that perhaps a couple in that situation would be better served to simply have an non-cohabiting LTR. Some of the rights afforded a married couple regarding medical decisions,being present when one's partner is in the ICU, inheritance issues,etc,could proably be dealt with via other forms of documentation.

Understand that most of this message is quotes from websites dealing with marriage and divorce, I have tried to stick to unbiased entities for those quotes. If there is "spin", whitewash","blather"-take it up with Cornell University-or the legislative bodies in your jurisdiction.
Cindy O
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 616
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/20/2011 9:47:19 AM
Lady c4 thanks for the class on marriage/divorce 101......The fact remains that there is a outcry to change those laws you have quoted.

The outcry is not just a few "damaged" men but some of the most prestigious legal minds today.

They say the 50/50 split is wrong and even the use of no fault needs to be revamped.

Just reciting the current laws is not a reason to keep them, or proof they are fair.

Many signs point to the need to change the laws and to use personal protection.

The many threads on here about why men are not wanting marriage is but one.

I saw a poll of men and women about wanting to get married. 76% of women wanted to get married compared to 23% of men.

When there is such a huge divide in the genders one would benefit from trying to understand why the divide is there.

Some just want to maintain status quo and not evaluate why marriage is not attractive to one gender while the other seems to embrace it.


Understand that most of this message is quotes from websites dealing with marriage and divorce, I have tried to stick to unbiased entities for those quotes. If there is "spin", whitewash","blather"-take it up with Cornell University-or the legislative bodies in your jurisdiction.


The problem here is what you posted is not proof the system is fair or even good reasons to marry.

They are the laws that many in the legal system say needs to be changed. To reduce the divorce rate and to restore marriage to what it should be a union of two people that want to spend the rest of their lives together.......Not a way to increase ones wealth from the other.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 617
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/20/2011 10:24:01 AM

The least one can expect of a grown healthy adult is for him or her to be able to support them self, to be, to a large degree, self sufficient.

Basically, I agree with this. But what about the case in which a couple choose to have kids, and agree that one parent (mom or dad) should remain home as caregiver till the kid(s) are school-age, and to then take a job that has flexible or reduced hours, so that the kids have the benefit of being raised by their parent rather than outside childcare. Do you think it would be fair for that parent to have some compensation for the hit to his or her career, especially if the working parent has become quite succesful? I'm not talking about some inordinate amount of spousal support, continued indefinitely, but do you think it's fair that one person benefit by having children and a succesful career, due to the career sacrifice of their partner?


Men should only settle for women who have their head screwed-on properly. Unfortunately, many settle for "pretty", which is pretty dumb.

Agreed, but then plenty enough women settle for men who are "pretty".
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 618
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/20/2011 10:31:55 AM

Basically, I agree with this. But what about the case in which a couple choose to have kids, and agree that one parent (mom or dad) should remain home as caregiver till the kid(s) are school-age, and to then take a job that has flexible or reduced hours, so that the kids have the benefit of being raised by their parent rather than outside childcare. Do you think it would be fair for that parent to have some compensation for the hit to his or her career, especially if the working parent has become quite succesful? I'm not talking about some inordinate amount of spousal support, continued indefinitely, but do you think it's fair that one person benefit by having children and a succesful career, due to the career sacrifice of their partner?


I raised my children as a single parent for the most part receiving no child support from the mothers.

Yet I was able to run two business' at the same time. Child care does NOT require 24/7 care.

The one staying home has ample time to enroll in online classes to keep up with or improve their work skills and education level.

So no I see no need to subsidize the stay at home parent as they could do that for themselves.

Sorry but there is not a reason to reward a lack of personal responsibility.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 619
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/20/2011 10:39:16 AM
errm
I'm not trying to establish anything or persuade anybody about "fairness" -I'm answering the title question of the OT. Which was about reasons for getting legally married.
A secondary question asks about ways to obtain any "benefits" of marriage while avoiding (perhaps) the legal/financial ramifications. Those have also been discussed ad nauseum.
Whether the marriage laws, child support laws, divorce laws are fair or unfair was NOT the question asked.
If there was a concerted and organized effort made that PROVED marriage and divorce to be "unfair", perhaps changes would be effected. But the courts and legislatures are first and foremost interested in preventing divorced spouses and children of broken marriages-regardless of gender and/or who did what to who and when they done it-from becoming dependents on the state assistance rolls-dollars that come out of taxpayer pockets. Remember "taxes" are not just deductions from someone's paycheck or a check sent in on April 15 to the IRS, there are many other forms of taxation that affect nearly everyone. THAT is the "we the people" that our legislative bodies are charged with serving-regardless of gender.
edit to add
By all means, if 'we the people' wish to petition Congress to enact various laws demanding a certain level of income, the passing of a battery of tests proving that each person could independently support themselves and children should the marriage fail-in short-if Congress enacted laws that made marriage an impossible attainment for a goodly proportion of "we the people", and instituted punitive statutes for those caught trying to circuumvent marriage by cohabitation, or having sex outside the bonds of marriage-then they should do so. If such laws are held to violate the US Constitution, "we the people" should demand that the US Constitution be struck down as being unfair.
Good luck with that
Cindy O
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 620
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/20/2011 10:51:57 AM
While married couples do not possess a constitutional or legal right to divorce, states permit divorces because to do so best serves public policy.


This one really is of concern and needs to be changed. To not have a "constitutional right" and to have the state "permit" divorce. I dunno, but when marriage is considered a legal and binding contract but there is no legal right to exit it other than by the archaic notion that the state permits it, harkens to the dark ages and something needs to be changed. In this day and age of litigation, particularly in the U.S. over the littlest thing, other forms of contract have exit clauses which have a constitutional right and which see to the best interests of the parties entering the contract. It should not even be a choice of a prenup but mandatory that there be one as the exit clause dealing with the contract of marriage. As some other posters have mentioned along the way, if big brother is going to tell you that you don't have a legal right to divorce, they should also tell you you don't have a right to marry until such time as you've taken extensive courses on the contract of marriage and inserted an exit clause into said contract. Otherwise, we have nations of people attempting to close the door after even the mice have left the barn. Extensive marriage contract reform is definitely required.

vvvvv Yet another off topic comment. This thread's not about spiritual commitment but the legal reasons for getting married. To attempt to explain the concept of marriage to myself, for example, as an individual who was married for 30 years and with the same man for a total of 35 years, has two grown children and actually experienced the legal wranglings of divorce, I'd say I, for one, have intimate knowledge of both what marriage "should" be and what it isn't at the time of its demise.
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 621
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/20/2011 11:18:04 AM

Whether the marriage laws, child support laws, divorce laws are fair or unfair was NOT the question asked.


However they do effect the "reasons for getting legally married."

Which is the question asked.


If there was a concerted and organized effort made that PROVED marriage and divorce to be "unfair", perhaps changes would be effected. But the courts and legislatures are first and foremost interested in preventing divorced spouses and children of broken marriages-regardless of gender and/or who did what to who and when they done it-from becoming dependents on the state assistance rolls-dollars that come out of taxpayer pockets. Remember "taxes" are not just deductions from someone's paycheck or a check sent in on April 15 to the IRS, there are many other forms of taxation that affect nearly everyone. THAT is the "we the people" that our legislative bodies are charged with serving-regardless of gender.


And what better way of having that happen than to fix the system so it doesn't support the ones that use it to get subsidization?

If they know going into the marriage that they won't be able to get a subsidized lifestyle they would know they have to be responsible for themselves, and make plans to support themselves instead of expecting another to do so.


By all means, if 'we the people' wish to petition Congress to enact various laws demanding a certain level of income, the passing of a battery of tests proving that each person could independently support themselves and children should the marriage fail-in short-if Congress enacted laws that made marriage an impossible attainment for a goodly proportion of "we the people", and instituted punitive statutes for those caught trying to circuumvent marriage by cohabitation, or having sex outside the bonds of marriage-then they should do so. If such laws are held to violate the US Constitution, "we the people" should demand that the US Constitution be struck down as being unfair.
Good luck with that


To claim you are against massive government intervention in private lives you sure seem to propose they be included in any changes made.

Why does the government have to be included? Can't a person decide for themselves to address the problem?

With pre nups and other measures to protect their interests.

****************************************************************************

As some other posters have mentioned along the way, if big brother is going to tell you that you don't have a legal right to divorce, they should also tell you you don't have a right to marry until such time as you've taken extensive courses on the contract of marriage and inserted an exit clause into said contract. Otherwise, we have nations of people attempting to close the door after even the mice have left the barn. Extensive marriage contract reform is definitely required.


Yes the point is it is cheaper to address the problem before hand. Some just don't want to admit that because it would remove the crutch for the people abusing the current system.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 622
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/20/2011 11:20:15 AM
Chameleon
I do not disagree with you, but again, that has to do with depending on the state "permitting" divorce, not so much the cries of financial unfairness...

As to that, here's a thought. Don't marry someone who earns less/has less than you do, and don't beget children.

Many many voices have suggested that making marriage more difficult to enter into might curb the divorce rate.
Oh boy-can you imagine-Congress declaring a moratorium on marriage until the marriage contract is reformed? But then there'd have to be something put in place to deal with children born from people practicing marriage without a license.
And again-I for one am NOT opposed to prenups.
I am simply pointing out that I have seen nothing that DICTATES that the state or the court would have to abide by them-after all, we are dependent upon the state to "permit" divorce-it's not a Constitutional guarantee.
Cindy O
 UnixGrand
Joined: 5/9/2011
Msg: 623
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/20/2011 11:26:38 AM
You must have been raised by wolves. Marriage is a spiritual commitment to another who will probably complete the creation of another human being that is actually part of you. You obviously have never had a child and watched him/her grow from perhaps 7# at birth to 180# 6 feet as an adult and watched that adult human being be successful in life as a result of the love of you and the other parent. You haven't watched you spouse become stronger and happier as a result of your commitment to the happiness of both of you. Marriage is a celebration of this commitment. Commitment means you don't take the easy way out and run the minute things get a little iffy - you become a better person by communicating and caring for other people no matter what happens. Marriage makes you a better, deeper person.


Everyone put your listening ears on. Somebody is making sense. It's a life choice. It's a commitment.
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 624
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/20/2011 11:26:58 AM
Oh boy-can you imagine-Congress declaring a moratorium on marriage until the marriage contract is reformed? But then there'd have to be something put in place to deal with children born from people practicing marriage without a license.


Which takes me back to the ol' sperm bank scenario. No children at all unless you've frozen the egg and batter and the good ol' government doles it out to you after those extensive courses. Kinda like Soilent Green (er Soylent even) but having to do with marriage and family rather than a food shortage. I can see how writers come up with the stuff they do based on mankinds overall stupidity.
 UnixGrand
Joined: 5/9/2011
Msg: 625
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/20/2011 11:30:05 AM

Kinda like Soilent Green but having to do with marriage and family rather than a food shortage. I can see how writers come up with the stuff they do based on mankinds overall stupidity.


Sounds more like Logan's Run to me.
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?