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.
Would men have the same, perceived, commitment problems claimed by women of men, if they were using men for sex until a man wants a relationship?
I agree with you that women would not be perceived in the manner they currently are if they could receive unemployment compensation for being naturally unemployed.
If the same holds true for men, many men could pursue an opportunity cost of buying milk at their convenience and potentially buying a cow if it is a good investment; under the assumption that a cow will require a barn if not a house.
My underdeveloped brain at age 22 drove me into marrying my girlfriend back in the early 80's. Just a few short months after our wedding, I was convinced I had made a huge mistake. However, I gave it a chance and adjusted and molded to the married life.
For 15 solid years I enjoyed a blissful marriage. I was truly in love with the wife of my youth and could not see myself living without her, EVER! Unfortunately, our ways of thinking and behaviours changed dramatically. Our beliefs - or lack thereof -created wide rifts between us. We went from blissful love to drifting further and further apart.
After 25 years - the last ten being straneuous, sad and painful - it was time to end what was no longer repairable. It ended 2.5 years ago. We are, and will always be, concerned for each other's wellbeing. Going back is not an option...AND NIETHER IS RE-MARRYING. As far as I'm concerned, marriage was meant to be done once and only once.
Our War on Poverty comes from taxes and is more expensive. Unemployment compensation is usually paid for by employers. If the employee pays half, most of that form of poverty elimination could be accomplished by the market participants themselves.
Please, taxes are practically a catch-22. They take to give.
Unemployment compensation is paid for by employers? Wtf? If someone is unemployed, he/she does not have an employer.
The employee pays half? But if a person doesn't have a job, then they are not an employee.
What you're propositioning sounds like an idea from one of the looters in Atlas Shrugged.
Please, taxes are practically a catch-22. They take to give.
Unemployment compensation is paid for by employers? Wtf? If someone is unemployed, he/she does not have an employer.
The employee pays half? But if a person doesn't have a job, then they are not an employee.
What you're propositioning sounds like an idea from one of the looters in Atlas Shrugged.
Are you resorting to red herrings? Most people in our form of political economy must be employed for our political economy to function.
We are already paying taxes on a War on Poverty. Those monies could be used to eliminate poverty via unemployment compensation for those individuals who have never been employed.
Unemployment compensation could be as easy to administer as a minimum wage is now. Welfare as we currently know it is much more expensive.
Altlas Shrugged, in my opinion, mis-categorized the issues. Our extra-constitutional drug war is more a form of "looting" because it has the effect of "stealing" forms of private property and destroying forms of wealth, via the coercive use of force of the State, due to public policy decisions that have nothing to do with the general welfare of our republic.
My opinion is alot of men marry a woman because they don't want to share her or know she might consider another so he has to possess her so an engagement happens (something about a ring on the finger)...although some still want their cake & eat it too but to the man that ring on her finger=chastity belt. Sometimes if the relationship has gone on a long time then you make it official or moive on. As much as I love my husband, I know part of the reason he put that ring on my finger 3 months after we met is because all his friends took notice of me so men are basic cave men when it comes to women.
I can understand tradition for the sake of tradition; but, our objective reality no longer provides the same justification for some traditions. The divorce rate in our republic is not due to excessive amounts of fidelity in relating and relationships according to "traditional" values.
In my opinion, morals are supposed to provide for the greater glory of our immortal souls and not merely for the convenience of political power.
How can we be more holy and moral in Nurture while still evolving in Nature?
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.
