Marriage - I don't get this... (pregnant, Latin, spouses, social)
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.
Hollow argument. Divorces are circumstantial. You can't pick 5 random couples and confidently assume that each has an equal chance of divorcing. Just because something like 50% of marriages end in divorce (a flawed statistic, by the way) doesn't mean that any given couple has a 50% chance of splitting.
Yes, divorces are circumstantial, the problem is that in many cases the circumstances are out of your control. I've seen many divorces where the one filing for divorce is simply bored and wants a different life. They even come right out and say their spouse is wonderful, they have just lost "feeling" for them and want to move on. In some cases they want to move on from the relationship, but not from the spouse's money, and the laws in many states allow that to happen. That is where you end up with people being totally against marriage.
If we only allowed no-fault, unilateral divorce when the person filing agrees to walk away with just a 50-50 split of the assets and fair child support if necessary, people would not be so down on marriage. Alimony being handed to the person bailing out is a huge reason why many people hate the institution at this point.
There is nothing negative about that at all. I'm just using logic and common sense, I'm not going to invest in something that has a 50% chance (or more) to fail. Would you get on a plane that had a 50% chance to crash? Would you heavily invest in a business that had a 50% chance to fail? e.
You are operating under bad info:
A false conclusion in the 1970s that half of all first marriages ended in divorce was based on the simple but completely wrong analysis of the marriage and divorce rates per 1,000 people in the United States. A similar abuse of statistical analysis led to the conclusion that 60 percent of all second marriages ended in divorce.
These errors have had a profound impact on attitudes about marriage in our society and it is a terrible injustice that there wasn’t more of an effort to get accurate data (essentially only obtainable by following a significant number of couples over time and measuring the outcomes) or that newer, more accurate and optimistic data isn’t being heavily reported in the media.
It is now clear that the divorce rate in first marriages probably peaked at about 40 percent for first marriages around 1980 and has been declining since to about 30 percent in the early 2000s. This is a dramatic difference. Rather than viewing marriage as a 50-50 shot in the dark it can be viewed as having a 70 percent likelihood of succeeding. But even to use that kind of generalization, i.e., one simple statistic for all marriages, grossly distorts what is actually going on.
In fact, the divorce rate of college-educated women over 25 is 20%. 20%...far cry from 50.
How is marriage related to morality? If you look back in ancient times, women were forced to marry men of their father's choosing. Women at home were considered financial burdens and married off to the highest bidder. It was more of a business than for morality. There are also those today who marry because the other has money or for some other agenda. Someone mentioned hositlity. Maybe single folk wouldn't be hostile if they weren't deemed moral failures or made to feel they lack something everyone else has. Times have changed and are still changing. The only way to solve the marriage crisis' is arranged marriages.
Yes, divorces are circumstantial, the problem is that in many cases the circumstances are out of your control. I've seen many divorces where the one filing for divorce is simply bored and wants a different life. They even come right out and say their spouse is wonderful, they have just lost "feeling" for them and want to move on. In some cases they want to move on from the relationship, but not from the spouse's money, and the laws in many states allow that to happen. That is where you end up with people being totally against marriage.
If we only allowed no-fault, unilateral divorce when the person filing agrees to walk away with just a 50-50 split of the assets and fair child support if necessary, people would not be so down on marriage. Alimony being handed to the person bailing out is a huge reason why many people hate the institution at this point.
One of the reasons I HATE (yes I said hate)divorced dads isn't so much because of them but because of the money they are usually spending, between child support, alimony and mortgage. People who aren't single and childless don't understand why so many childless people refuse to date them but this is probably the #1 reason. When marrying someone who is never married, widowed and likely divorced without no kids there probably isn't this extra money going out but with kids it is more likely that the ex was a stay at home parent than the other situations. Because of that the spouse might still be paying for them. I know there are cases where there were no kids and the ex is paying alimony but I don't think these cases are common.
Honestly there is no way I will ever date a man who is supporting an exwife. I'd rather be single with 100 cats then deal with this scenario because not only isn't it likely he'd marry me but if he does I'd likely end up supporting the dead weight of an ex and work 40 hours while she sits on her fat butt eating bon bons.
See it depends upon the perception of each and every person. Some people are very curious to get along with someone or to get married since they feel that they need a partner in their life. Also some people who have been betrayed in love, somewhat do not believe in getting along with other person so easily..There are people who switch partners everytime god knows what they are thinking on.
Ugh, I'm glad I never married. I do have a kid from a relationship that was in talks about marriage, but I'm sure glad I left my two feet on the ground.
The only time I ever told someone not to get married was a good friend of mine. I'm told him to wait, live with her for a while, take your time. He got married, which was his decision in the first place. I wanted to be friend and not tell him what he can or can't do.
I know there are cases where there were no kids and the ex is paying alimony but I don't think these cases are common.
Honestly there is no way I will ever date a man who is supporting an exwife. I'd rather be single with 100 cats then deal with this scenario because not only isn't it likely he'd marry me but if he does I'd likely end up supporting the dead weight of an ex and work 40 hours while she sits on her fat butt eating bon bons.
Thank you for your honesty.
The case where there are no kids but the ex is still paying alimony is very common in many states. In fact, in Colorado, the majority of the alimony situations do not involve minor children. Children have no bearing on whether alimony is awarded.
There seems to be this recurrent misconception that the people who are married here have never been "done wrong" or screwed over or betrayed by someone.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Not sure if this is true but in the USA but single people used to pay more taxes than married couples and now married couples are paying as much as single people or more, correct?
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.
