Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do we have to assume that monogamy is the only way to relationship?
We don't have to assume anything. If a husband catches his wife cheating or vice versa he does not have to pursue a divorce if he does not want to. If he does, however, it is because he considered it breach of contract, and frankly most people would agree with him. If there are no expectations of monogamy or fidelity that's something that would have been discussed and understood by both parties at some point.
No marriage favors men. Nice to know one has a foot on the door and can walk away at any time with no problems.
Care to explain this? I assume youre saying men have no burdens in a marriage without the law? Youre insinuating that marriage exists to tie a man down to his burdens???
Care to explain this? I assume youre saying men have no burdens in a marriage without the law? Youre insinuating that marriage exists to tie a man down to his burdens???
Marriage is a contract. A written contract tends to have more weight than an implied verbal agreement. When women decided they wanted to be like the guys they did the guy a BIG favor. With no written contract the man can leave at any time with little burden.
However, women with assets may also benefit form a relationship with no formality. Her assets will also be protected. So it could work both ways.
Marriage is a contract. A written contract tends to have more weight than an implied verbal agreement. When women decided they wanted to be like the guys they did the guy a BIG favor. With no written contract the man can leave at any time with little burden.
However, women with assets may also benefit form a relationship with no formality. Her assets will also be protected. So it could work both ways.
Thats not true at all. A man that gets a woman pregnant out of wedlock is just as liable for the kids as far as the government is concerned as a man that gets a woman pregnant within the confines a marriage. All a marriage document does is allow them to get a divorce.
I'm not big on adultery, but I'd be against criminalizing it just simply because there's way too many factors involved (some of which have already been mentioned). Not to mention, if you're looking to punish the 'third party', then there's always the question of 'when did the third party know their lover was married?'
Not to mention....that seems a lot more of a private matter, not a public one, so much. It may be taboo, but it's been illegal, and that really didn't stop anybody in the past.
Thats not true at all. A man that gets a woman pregnant out of wedlock is just as liable for the kids as far as the government is concerned as a man that gets a woman pregnant within the confines a marriage. All a marriage document does is allow them to get a divorce.
Yeah, paternity is paternity regardless.
Walking away from a relationship with no paper is easier than a relationship with paper. The paper means commitment.
I do not believe it should be illegal but people do have a point that it is breach of contract, and it should be a factor when determining custody of children and alimony. Currently from what I've heard this is not the case in most jurisdictions. The person who breached the contract should not be rewarded for their betrayal.
I wonder if it necessarily is if you participate in a civil ceremony (rather than a church wedding) and you write your own vows?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.