Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-31-2009, 01:07 PM
 
19,632 posts, read 12,226,539 times
Reputation: 26428

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by teatime View Post
Very true. The laws are discriminatory and need to be changed.

However, as it stands now, getting married is a big risk, too. Aside from the philosophical objections I have to relationships being "licensed" by the state to be valid, I have some very practical issues with it, as well.

I own my home. It's cute and humble, but it's all mine, no mortgage. If I were to get married, however, and things didn't work out over time, the man could actually claim rights to a share of my home that I bought MYSELF before I even met him. If he fixed some things or took care of the lawn and garden, he could present his case and get something out of it.

That is WRONG. When I was younger and stupid, an abusive man displaced me and our son from our home. I will NEVER allow another man, no matter how kind and sincere he seems, to potentially displace me again. It's simply not worth it.
I own a home too and if I were to marry (ha) we would get a house together, paid for together. I could sell my home or rent it out but it is not fair to have a spouse live in a home that he or she doesn't have a part in owning. It gives all the control to the other spouse and sets up for resentment. Don't even cohabitate in a home owned by one partner - too much power imbalance.

 
Old 12-31-2009, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Where the sun likes to shine!!
20,548 posts, read 30,394,464 times
Reputation: 88950
I don't see marriage as a benefit unless it is for tax purposes and/or if you are raising a family.

If you are older and have assets of your own there is no reason to get married. That dreaded "HALF" comes into play. So if you do get married and you have assets get pre nups. Our government makes marriage a business(in the tax breaks) and so should you.
 
Old 12-31-2009, 01:33 PM
 
Location: US, California - federalist
2,794 posts, read 3,678,046 times
Reputation: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by mango tango View Post
The latter part is NOT a problem of Capitalism or an unemployment rate. It is instead the result of two things: a.) the existence of blatant gold-diggers - they put men on their guard, and b.) the fact that some men refuse to understand that financial stability is a very attractive factor because no one wants to spend their marital life arguing about whether they should pay the electric or telephone bill.
We are already paying for a War on Poverty and a War on Crime. We could lower our tax burden by ending those wasteful endeavors and simply solve official poverty in the US.

It could be viewed as a form of human capital infrastructure development that provides for the general welfare.
 
Old 12-31-2009, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Amarillo, Tx
622 posts, read 1,279,970 times
Reputation: 694
Child custody has nothing to do with marriage. You deal with it divorced or broken up.
 
Old 12-31-2009, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,232 posts, read 46,658,013 times
Reputation: 11084
Quote:
Originally Posted by teatime View Post
Right?! LOL. As if comparing us to farm animals is supposed to convince us that we can't have sex unless we're married! Hahahahahaha...
Who marries the stallion and mare together? Or the bull and the cow?
 
Old 12-31-2009, 02:19 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,232 posts, read 46,658,013 times
Reputation: 11084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ameribull View Post
Child custody has nothing to do with marriage. You deal with it divorced or broken up.
If one partner leaves town and disappears, then that parent probably doesn't have to "deal with" custody or support.
 
Old 12-31-2009, 02:31 PM
 
Location: US, California - federalist
2,794 posts, read 3,678,046 times
Reputation: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Who marries the stallion and mare together? Or the bull and the cow?
Stallions mares, bulls and cows do not have our Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet.
 
Old 12-31-2009, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,232 posts, read 46,658,013 times
Reputation: 11084
What does the Constitution have to do with marriage? I don't think it's mentioned.
 
Old 12-31-2009, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Coachella Valley, California
15,639 posts, read 41,038,202 times
Reputation: 13472
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but ... why buy the pig just to get a little sausage???
 
Old 12-31-2009, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Texas
8,064 posts, read 18,010,195 times
Reputation: 3730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorrans View Post
I'm happy that you are on your guard. This is the same thought process many men are using and it's these kinda scenarios many men are trying to desperately avoid. Your house is yours and yours alone. Don't you ever let a man manipulate you or try and displace you again. I'm glad that you are protecting yourself by all means necessary.
Thanks, Dorrans.

And I should add that women have been FAR worse in their unreasonable demands when they get divorced than men could ever be. I am not casting dispersion on men in general. As you said, I just want to protect myself.

Beyond that, I don't see why couples need a "license" to validate or legitimize a relationship. I'm not commitment-shy; I adore men. I just don't think marriage is necessary. And since women are now more career-minded, buying their own homes, and such, I think that more will see what a legal liability marriage can be.

Interestingly enough, I know a couple who have some major assets between them and, when their marriage became a mess and they started looking to divorce, they decided that staying legally married was their best option. Both of them would have seen their significant assets thrown into the pot and put into jeopardy. So, rather than go through all of that, they decided to simply live entirely separate lives apart from each other and stay married in name only. That's what marriage has come down to, in some cases.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:12 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 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, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top