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.
#1. In New York state - and it never speaks about "utilization". I've explained it, you may check it out with your lawyer if you ever get the need for divorce. You may get pleasantly surprised if your husband bought the house, you may need a shower if you did it. Regardless whether before or after marriage, it becomes subject of a property split in case of separation/divorce because you both lived in it throughout the marriage, i.e. you "utilized" it.
#2. This practice stems from time and age when couples would join assets - yet the legal system would put husband in charge since a woman was perpetual minor, a husband would be in charge of "mutual property" and this practice would continue even after divorce - thus he'd be obliged to make sure that a divorced wife maintains the pre-marital standard of living. In case of a fault on husband's side, wife would retain her dowry and husband would still be obliged to pay to help and maintain her previous lifestyle. In case of a fault on wife's side, she'd get nothing. That is IF they could even legally divorce. Otherwise, they'd be separated and similar arrangements would be employed.
This practice describes the process of dealing with "joint property" some 100+ years ago, it's absurd to employ it today. When you enter a joint ventury, each party's contribution should be exactly determined, not dealt with some arbitrary presumption of "equal participation".
#3. As a matter of fact, I'm positive you posted such thing some days/weeks ago, citing an article on business insider. I've skimmed through the article and laughed. I could swear it was you, although I didn't post on that topic. I'm citing this article, it's still in the bookmarks, it's this article: Homemaker Salary - Business Insider
#4. I may remind you that I'm an atheist and I don't believe in the church/mosque/religious stuff. I do have a masters degree and am fairly educated, with continuous efforts to expand my knowledge. I do know that marital vows are NOT enforced by any law and can't be enforced. Legislators also made sure to de-regulate even common things that happen to be vicious and inflicting upon one's personal well-being through emotional or financial consequences of affairs or paternity fraud and so on, even though these things can be more accurately dealt with without the need of "getting caught during the act" for a valid argument. On the other hand, legislators never tackled or thought of de-regulating the financial aspects of a marriage as a business contract. This is coupled with deliberate way of making such business contract into the only business contract that can be unilaterally revoked and rejected at any point, without any consequences. This is also known as a modern version "no-fault" divorce today. No-fault divorce existed before, but it was far different and it required both parties to agree with it being "no fault".
To sum it up: There are numerous arguments that back my claim that marriage is literally outrageous and even criminal. The way it deals with or even transfers assets and earnings from one party to another is literally criminal in a system that we live in. It's not criminal in a Soviet system for the mere fact that the system rejected concept of personal property as something of any value, thus it deliberately made sure to follow the concepts of transferring assets from the more capable party to another one, especially to the party that "needs it more". This already became a long post, so I'll stop at here, for now.
I don't think it was me. I don't disagree with it I just don't remember posting it.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,957,550 times
Reputation: 40635
Mod cut: Orphaned (reply to post which has been deleted).
This thread is about marriage, not the 1/3rd that get divorced, and the even rather tiny percent of those that get "screwed" (as both genders can and do).
Mod comment: timber is correct. People stay on topic, everyone.
.
No mention has been made of affection, mutual respect and deference, which is NOT love, but nevertheless and substantial and abiding feeling. And no mention has been made of a couple marrying before (or without) love, but gradually slipping into love (as opposed to falling into love) over time.
I don't hesitate to agree that a marriage without strong feeling of interconnectedness between the two partners is a tawdry sham. Where I emphatically disagree is with the notion that "love" is absolutely essential.
Some people are incapable of love, or uninterested in it. And yet, they are loyal, selfless, devoted and reliable. Ought such people never to marry?
Some people are incapable of love, or uninterested in it. And yet, they are loyal, selfless, devoted and reliable. Ought such people never to marry?
Sure.
As long as he or she marries somebody who understands that he or she is getting loyalty, selflessness, devotion, and reliability out of the deal, and is totally clear on the fact that love is not part of the package, because the other person is incapable/uninterested in love, and is totally okay with that.
Hard sell, perhaps. Limited buyers. But I suppose it could happen.
Grow out of what? You need some sort of meaningful foundation for love, not just a business arrangement.
Not necessarily. Love can grow out of nothing given the time and right circumstances.
These type relationships are much more common in developing countries. Women want security and a better life for themselves and family. Men want a loyal companion. Love may or may not come from those type relationships, but it is quite common.
Sure, it's possible... but not an ideal situation in cultures where people are free to choose their own mate. What works in a homogeneous, traditional culture doesn't necessarily translate over to a modern, heterogeneous culture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrion Grey
Not necessarily. Love can grow out of nothing given the time and right circumstances.
These type relationships are much more common in developing countries. Women want security and a better life for themselves and family. Men want a loyal companion. Love may or may not come from those type relationships, but it is quite common.
We come into this world alone and we leave alone, despite the common illusion that marriage somehow changes this fact.
^^^truth^^^ I wish more people realized this as I know of some who have gotten married only because of the fear of being alone. We are all alone, even those who are married. Being unhappily married can itself make you feel more alone. How ironic is that?
Just be nice to people, be smart regarding legal-contracts such as Marriage, and don't do anything out of fear as that doesn't lead to anything good.
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.
