Is it better for older people to get married or live together? (friend, welfare)
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.
It was originated to give legal protections to both parties in the relationship, and protections to the children.
And before women were in the workplace to the current degree and before women sought education and professions as much, legal and financial protections were devised by the state for marriages.
No one needs a history lesson. The state has no business in discriminating in taxes and benefits among the wed and unwed.
I wouldn't remarry without a prenup. I'd also want us to have two homes; one for summer and one for winter. One he bought and one I bought. I would not be willing to mingle finances or purchase property together. Honestly, I can't imagine finding anyone I could love enough to want to cohabitate with, no one is likely to hold a candle to my late husband, but it's always good to look at things and make a plan for the unexpected.
I realize this "member" isn't one any more, but I'm pretty sure she (yes, it was a she masquerading as a he) lives in California, a community property state.
Doesn't matter what respective spouses make. In California each spouse owns 1/2 of the property as well as 1/2 of the debt. This whinging about men being taken to the cleaners in community property states is annoying and wrong.
Actually, that is not quite as cut and dry as you say. A lot depends on length of marriage, property prior to marriage, property that was inherited and such for division of property. The courts goal is to try and "equalize" the living condition, and unless there is a prior agreement, if there is a big difference on income, they court will try and equalize it to a certain degree. On debt, also not quite true, luckily for me (yes, I use to live in California). My ex had several credit cards without my knowledge, and ran up a fair amount of debt. It was ruled that since I had no knowledge, I was not responsible, and that part of the debt was all hers. In the past, it use to not matter, but the circumstances do now. Same with alimony not being a lifetime award, and being limited in length (years).
Like I have said, I will not rule out marriage in the future, but I highly doubt that I will. I don't need a certificate to say I love someone, or committed to them, or living with them and need a piece of paper to appease certain groups to satisfy their belief on if I am living in sin or not.
No one needs a history lesson. The state has no business in discriminating in taxes and benefits among the wed and unwed.
This is where you're wrong. All the "benefits" of women's rights you enjoy today were earned with hard-fought rights after many decades of campaigns by the voters - starting with women's right to vote.
Without the "legal protection", you will be right back to being a 2nd class citizen, begging a man for financial support, trading sex for 3 meals a day.
The voters, hence the "society" recognizes and desires to have family as a basic unit in this society, that's why it gives preferrential treatments in taxes and benefits among the married couple & dependents.
This is where you're wrong. All the "benefits" of women's rights you enjoy today were earned with hard-fought rights after many decades of campaigns by the voters - starting with women's right to vote.
Without the "legal protection", you will be right back to being a 2nd class citizen, begging a man for financial support, trading sex for 3 meals a day.
The voters, hence the "society" recognizes and desires to have family as a basic unit in this society, that's why it gives preferrential treatments in taxes and benefits among the married couple & dependents.
End of history lessons.
You are so wrong.
First, to assume, incorrectly, that I am a woman. Second to approve of unequal benefits for anyone depending on their matrimonial status.
The voters, hence the "society" recognizes and desires to have family as a basic unit in this society, that's why it gives preferrential treatments in taxes and benefits among the married couple & dependents.
This is only too true, in terms of how society exists, and how it's likely to remain for the ponderable future. So many of our impediments and crutches, our ceilings and foundations, stem from this "family friendly" approach to life, which presumably started with the Neolithic Revolution, and has persisted for 10,000 years.
Such is the reality. But I personally wish that it were otherwise.
You're so opinionated that you're blind to the working order of this society.
First, I could care less if you're female, male, or anything in-between.
Second, just because that's your opinion doesn't make it true.
You "could care less"? That indicates you care right now, so how much less could you care?
You made an assumption that I was female and based an entire response upon that; you were very wrong. Rather than take another look at the situation you mumble something here about the "working order of this society." Great! What does that mean?
You are the one who is entitled to his opinion and we can see how you form it based on incorrect assumptions, bad use of language and anachronistic views. Hooray for you!
Yes - what I wrote is my opinion and you have done not a single thing to counter it. So be it.
You "could care less"? That indicates you care right now, so how much less could you care?
You made an assumption that I was female and based an entire response upon that; you were very wrong. Rather than take another look at the situation you mumble something here about the "working order of this society." Great! What does that mean?
You are the one who is entitled to his opinion and we can see how you form it based on incorrect assumptions, bad use of language and anachronistic views. Hooray for you!
Yes - what I wrote is my opinion and you have done not a single thing to counter it. So be it.
LOL.... you could not be MORE WRONG.
Everyone can be opinionated and arrogant behind a keyboard...
Let's just agree to disagree and let others decide who is wrong.
First, to assume, incorrectly, that I am a woman. Second to approve of unequal benefits for anyone depending on their matrimonial status.
Hey, if folks are ready to eliminate unequal benefits based on marital status, the very first thing that should go is spousal social security benefits. It's really just "welfare."
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.
