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.
Originally Posted by Redisca Umm, question: What does owning a condo have to do with whether or not it's better to be single?
Quote:
Originally Posted by elric
If you married and own a condo, and then later on divorce, that divorcing spouse, even if he hardly put any money or none at all to maintaining that condo, is entitled half the value of that condo assets which is considered a matrimonial home. I know a woman who lost her condo and force to sell it by court order and giving half that money sold that a condo to that divorcing husband who hardly did anything or contribute anything. Divorce by default is 50/50.
Oh btw, for those who say get a pre-nup, a divorce court judge can override that if the judge feels the pre-nup is unfair.
Every jurisdiction is potentially different. The issue here is that while you may keep an asset you had before marriage, you will then need to provide an alternate dwelling. In effect, you probably lose your property, unless you have deep pockets.
Also, more and more, living under the same roof is treated like marriage, after some number of months or perhaps a few years. The same right wing types who brought you welfare reform and to compensate, "beefed up" laws mandating prison for men who cannot keep up with alimony and child support payments (they were worried about an increase in prostitution, no doubt, should these women have no income at all) are also at war against co-habitation and common law marriage. Feminists and religious fundamentalists have a lot of common interests yet "liberals" are usually blamed for these developments.
Notaredneck posted a good instructive story about a guy who lost his house (and more) to a women who lived with him for 183 days. No marriage, no kids and he wasn't even home - due to his work - much of that time. In some places, it's that bad!
Every jurisdiction is potentially different. The issue here is that while you may keep an asset you had before marriage, you will then need to provide an alternate dwelling. In effect, you probably lose your property, unless you have deep pockets.
This is a myth. You are not required to provide squat. An asset that you owned before marriage is not subject to distribution in divorce -- period. But of course, when I say "owned" I mean "owned free and clear", as opposed to the back story behind most of these "horror stories", where the house was actually purchased with no down payment shortly before the relationship began, and the "gold digger" actually paid the mortgage. I have no faith in such stories being posted on blogs and such. Give me a link to an actual court decision or statute, then we'll talk.
Quote:
Also, more and more, living under the same roof is treated like marriage, after some number of months or perhaps a few years. The same right wing types who brought you welfare reform and to compensate, "beefed up" laws mandating prison for men who cannot keep up with alimony and child support payments (they were worried about an increase in prostitution, no doubt, should these women have no income at all) are also at war against co-habitation and common law marriage. Feminists and religious fundamentalists have a lot of common interests yet "liberals" are usually blamed for these developments.
Actually, it's the other way around. States are increasingly enacting laws rejecting common law marriage; at this time, it's legal in only 10 states, plus DC. And with the average child support award in this country being less than $400 a month, it's not exactly a gravy train.
Quote:
Notaredneck posted a good instructive story about a guy who lost his house (and more) to a women who lived with him for 183 days. No marriage, no kids and he wasn't even home - due to his work - much of that time. In some places, it's that bad!
Once again, anyone can write fiction. You don't lose a house just because someone lived in it, and adverse possession requires both, well, adversity, and 10 years' residence. Identify the state where this happened, the statute and the names of the parties, and then we'll see whether this is what really occurred.
Two friends working together sharing common goals and a common bank account.
It might work out, it might not.
There are no further benefits that are exclusive to marriage. Honestly any feature of this business relationship can be duplicated with a written contract [form a corporation].
I hear statements like that a lot, and they always remind me of this old Russian anekdot about a guy from a small village who takes a trip to Italy and upon coming back, is trying to explain to his friends what lemons are. Living in rural Russia, they, of course, have never seen nor tasted a lemon. "Well, you know, potato?" says the guy. "Yeah?" his friends respond. "Okay, a lemon is exactly like a potato," he explains, "only completely different."
Marriage is not a business contract. Marriage is marriage. It is its own thing. This, from a lawyer.
This is a myth. You are not required to provide squat. An asset that you owned
Quote:
before marriage is not subject to distribution in divorce -- period. But of course, when I say "owned" I mean "owned free and clear", as opposed to the back story behind most of these "horror stories", where the house was actually purchased with no down payment shortly before the relationship began, and the "gold digger" actually paid the mortgage. I have no faith in such stories being posted on blogs and such. Give me a link to an actual court decision or statute, then we'll talk.
a
What, a divorced woman he knew told him so isnt the same as actual statute and court documents?
IIRC, several Governments are promoting marriage due to their countries declining birthrate. However your point is well taken . Maybe marriages would flourish if the Government got the heck out of it.
Your statement about Christianity and marriage as being required is somewhat modern popular mythology. I believe there is a statement from Paul in the New Testament that, if possible, Christians are better off Single. Which was a pretty radical notion in an era where marriage was a duty. Every culture including decidedly nonreligious cultures have had marriages.
Does bring to mine the so called trappings of marriage ceremonies. It is interesting where some of the antecedents of various aspects came from.
You're referencing 1 Corinthians 7, I believe. You have to put it in context there. Paul was saying that first and foremost, Christians should be in a relationship with God. He was preaching that Christ was returning soon, and that the end of the world was near. He advised people not to buy material goods, not to enter into new relationships, and not to be concerned with worldly pleasures--because compared to Jesus, they are nothing.
Quote:
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Quote:
29What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
Even Paul though, admits that as humans there are very few of us who can deny ourselves physical and emotional pleasures from another person. In a perfect world, he says everyone would be concerned with God, and nothing else. I hardly think that's the state of most single people today. Getting married rarely is distracting anyone from their faith, which was Paul's concern.
If we accept that we are not focused solely on God, then Paul concedes it would be better for us to marry than to "burn with passion" (i.e. be so distracted by our desires).
wow...this thread should be titled "Counting the Ways of Why I Hate Marriage"......
I'm sorry to see so many disillusioned people out there....may explain why there is an inordinate number of very unhappy people walking around today and depression rates are rising rapidly....
Because anyway you cut it, the human animal needs companionship and to trivialize the importance of having a spouse/SO watching your back is sad.....
Cheer up. I know lots of people who LOVE being married. I'm one of them. There is nothing I do that can't be made better by doing it with my wife. Heheheheheheh...no, seriously, she makes everything more fun. Golf, shopping, tv watching, swimming, boating, reading, relaxing, cooking. I always enjoy her company and have a better time when she's around.
I hear statements like that a lot, and they always remind me of this old Russian anekdot about a guy from a small village who takes a trip to Italy and upon coming back, is trying to explain to his friends what lemons are. Living in rural Russia, they, of course, have never seen nor tasted a lemon. "Well, you know, potato?" says the guy. "Yeah?" his friends respond. "Okay, a lemon is exactly like a potato," he explains, "only completely different."
Marriage is not a business contract. Marriage is marriage. It is its own thing. This, from a lawyer.
yes its a contract you're one terrible lawyer I can see
Again I disagree boodhabunny.Yes married women work but they have more choices than men.Married women are FAR more likely to work part time than married men,even without children.Women also choose careers that are more fullfilling and want a better work/life balance because they are not as concerned with making more money because they know they have the option of marriage to a man who can be a good provider.The reason why married men make more money is because they have to.Women marry for money. Women Marry for Money | Psychology Today
tired-of-mn -- Those are the women that men want to marry. Men want wives who will make time for them. Men want wives who will cook breakfast for them, handle the bulk of the household chores, raise children, take care of herself (ie: work out to stay slim) , turn into a sex kitten after 10 pm, and who will put her career second. Not all, but many.
A career-driven professional needs a support system in place to run a household (if not a spouse, then paid staff). If a career couple wants a family, one of their careers will have to take a backseat to the other. Where you and I differ, is that you view that as an unfair advantage a woman has. I see it as a high risk sacrifice that might come back to bite her in the arse.
What I've observed in my own personal life: The harder I worked, the more committed I was to my career, the less attractive I became in the eyes of men who were looking for a wife.
Last edited by boodhabunny; 09-14-2010 at 02:26 AM..
What I've observed in my own personal life: The harder I worked, the more committed I was to my career, the less attractive I became in the eyes of men who were looking for a wife.
Look, when it comes down to it, many men really want to know that they are going to get enough attention from women. They're taking a wife because of love but also to satisfy certain needs. They may already know they'll get competition from the kids, but they sure as hell don't want to take back seat to some woman's career.
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.
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.
. Maybe marriages would flourish if the Government got the heck out of it. 
