Is Marriage really that bad?

[Mehrunes]

That would not make sense in the context of the posts made both by the person I quoted and the person he was responding to.

May said that the notion of men losing in divorce that some posters espouse (which stems from them more likely to be the breadwinner) is inconsistent with arguing again ay gap and jotaux responded that he confused pay gap with career choices. How exactly wouldn't the interpretation of career choices as choosing worse jobs be valid here?

The whole point of a marriage is that both the man and woman benefit from it so I am not sure why you need mention that she benefits from the marriage apart from to push a woe is me, poor, poor man narrative.

Yes, that is totally what I was doing. Couldn't be response to you focusing on just the woman's sacrifices and portraying her as some kind of exploited victim in case of a divorce. Why do I even bother with you and you disingenuous bullshit. And in case your dishonesty scrambled your brain and made you forgot your own post from 15 minutes earlier, it was you who brought gender into the equation. I used gendered examples only because I followed the framework of your post. I have been against alimony in general in the thread prior to your grand entrance, so do bother to actually read threads before you decide to pollute them. Which means no, I haven't been pushing a "woe is me, poor, poor man" narrative and as such you can shove it. Eventually, if you really, really can't control your sick need to project nonsense, project it on your father instead.

I simply cannot help you if you don't understand why it is not reasonable for one party reap the benefits of marriage and continue to enjoy them with no responsibilities to the person that helped enrich their lives once it is over.

Their responsibilities end with divorce. That's kinda the point of it. Just like the benefits do.

Why is it her choice? When you are married or in a serious relationship major decisions are usually taken jointly.

Because ultimately the guy can't force her to do so.

[Fenixdown]

If you're in a relationship and thinking about marriage...and the first thing that comes to your mind is FEAR...you are in the WRONG relationship.

Just sayin'.

[Pann]

Those laws come from an era where women were household dependents of men, like children

Children don't "help amass" wealth, they just need to be protected and provided for because they can't be expected to earn, just as women were not expected to earn

These laws have no place in the modern world

Many laws date back hundreds of years, their age is irrelevant.

What have children got to do with anything I asked? How about trying to answer my question?

Based on what you've written, throughout this thread, it appears that it is your understanding of the law and how it works that is flawed rather than the law itself.

[May90]

Just compare the costs vs the benefits

Not getting married doesn't mean you can't have fun and fulfilling relationships, even kids

The upside is very limited; the downside, life-destroying

It's not surprising only 25% of young people even want to get married now, and the number keeps dropping

Marriage has a large sentimental and traditional value. Some people literally believe that, until they have married someone, they haven't lived their life. The world is not money and practical things only, it is also such "irrational" things as this that give us joy. If you want to be a practical robot and see everything in terms of physical gain and loss, then yeah, you shouldn't get married.

[Deleted]

Many laws date back hundreds of years, their age is irrelevant.

What have children got to do with anything I asked? How about trying to answer my question?

Based on what you've written, throughout this thread, it appears that it is your understanding of the law and how it works that is flawed rather than the law itself.

Nope, also weak dodges, try to stay on point next time

If you think we should follow old laws that assume women as subordinates (like alimony laws) how about some droit de seigneur (even though its quite possibly a myth)

Marriage has a large sentimental and traditional value. Some people literally believe that, until they have married someone, they haven't lived their life. The world is not money and practical things only, it is also such "irrational" things as this that give us joy. If you want to be a practical robot and see everything in terms of physical gain and loss, then yeah, you shouldn't get married.

I'm almost certain I've had many more romantic and joyful relationships than you have, so unless you think reading Twilight gives you experience, I would say maybe there's some growing up you need to do

[Azadina]

I'm almost certain I've had many more romantic and joyful relationships than you have, so unless you think reading Twilight gives you experience, I would say maybe there's some growing up you need to do

Maybe you should live in the real world for a while, if you believe that women do not work or contribute in a marriage in todays society.

[Astronom]

Given the failure rate of marriage it seems to be broken. Its a social and legal contract where both participants take very serious binding promises never to break up, yet despite this the failure rate is about 50%. I have never been married and never will be married. How can you make such a legal promise when you simply don't know how either of you will feel 5, 10 or more years down the line? Very few people marry expecting to divorce, yet so many do.

[Deleted]

If you're in a relationship and thinking about marriage...and the first thing that comes to your mind is FEAR...you are in the WRONG relationship.

Just sayin'.

I'm sure most marriages started out with the very best of intentions on both parts. Then life happens. Statistically it is a coin toss whether your wife will decide to divorce you, and it most often is the wife that will initiate divorce and more often than not, she is the one who stands to benefit financially.

[May90]

I'm almost certain I've had many more romantic and joyful relationships than you have, so unless you think reading Twilight gives you experience, I would say maybe there's some growing up you need to do

I don't address ad hominem arguments. And based on what you keep saying here, I'm pretty sure all your "joyful relationships" exist only in your head, or they were with women of the kind I don't want in my life. Regardless, one doesn't need to have a lot of experience to understand that there is more to marriage than "she will take your money and leave". If you don't understand it, then, regardless of your experience and age, you have a baby's understanding of the matter.

[Pann]

May said that the notion of men losing in divorce that some posters espouse (which stems from them more likely to be the breadwinner) is inconsistent with arguing again ay gap and jotaux responded that he confused pay gap with career choices. How exactly wouldn't the interpretation of career choices as choosing worse jobs be valid here?

You introduced a completely different argument about the wider issues of the gender pay gap.

Yes, that is totally what I was doing. Couldn't be response to you focusing on just the woman's sacrifices and portraying her as some kind of exploited victim in case of a divorce. Why do I even bother with you and you disingenuous bullshit. And in case your dishonesty scrambled your brain and made you forgot your own post from 15 minutes earlier, it was you who brought gender into the equation. I used gendered examples only because I followed the framework of your post. I have been against alimony in general in the thread prior to your grand entrance, so do bother to actually read threads before you decide to pollute them. Which means no, I haven't been pushing a "woe is me, poor, poor man" narrative and as such you can shove it. Eventually, if you really, really can't control your sick need to project nonsense, project it on your father instead.

I'm sorry? What? I have not portrayed the woman as some kind of victim at all. It is ironic that you accuse me of disingenuous bullshit whilst completely misrepresenting my post.

I am not interested in what you may or may not have written prior to my grand entrance hence the fact I did not quote anything you wrote until you replied to my post. Did I touch a nerve? Anyway if you feel that I pollute the thread I suggest ignoring me.

Their responsibilities end with divorce. That's kinda the point of it. Just like the benefits do.

The world does not and has never worked that way.

Because ultimately the guy can't force her to do so.

No, no he can't. And on that note I don't think there is anything left for me to say.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, also weak dodges, try to stay on point next time

If you think we should follow old laws that assume women as subordinates (like alimony laws) how about some droit de seigneur (even though its quite possibly a myth)

You're trying to avoid my questions once again.

There is no suggestion that the law assumes the woman to subordinate. You either do not understand what you're talking about or are being deliberately dishonest.

[Deleted]

There is no suggestion that the law assumes the woman to subordinate. You either do not understand what you're talking about or are being deliberately dishonest.

I don't enjoy having to educate people but here you go, marriage laws are an antiquated concept that really have no place in 2016:

The Code of Hammurabi (1754 BC) declares that a man must provide sustenance to a woman who has borne him children, so that she can raise them:

137. If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.[2]

Alimony has also been discussed in the Code of Justinian.[3]

The modern concept of alimony is derived from English ecclesiastical courts that awarded alimony in cases of separation and divorce.

Post-divorce or permanent alimony was also based on the notion that the marriage continued, as ecclesiastical courts could only award a divorce a mensa et thora, similar to a legal separation today. As divorce did not end the marriage, the husband's duty to support his wife remained intact.[4]

[May90]

I've noticed that many people here see the world only in extremes: "Either you defend males and attack females, or you defend females and attack males". Why can't people realize that it is possible to be objective with regards to both genders, without a silly sexist bias? If you disagree that males are treated unjustly, compared to females, then you are "white knight"; if you disagree that females are treated unjustly, compared to males, then you are "woman hater". Like, what the ookin' hork?

[Lotus Victoria]

Marriage is just a religious tradition nowadays. Not worth it in my opinion.

[Azadina]

Marriage is just a religious tradition nowadays. Not worth it in my opinion.

Wasn't invented by religion. Wanna try again?

[Deleted]

Marriage is betting that someone else will love you enough to not take half your shit.

And I don't bet.

[Pann]

I don't enjoy having to educate people but here you go, marriage laws are an antiquated concept that really have no place in 2016:

The Code of Hammurabi (1754 BC) declares that a man must provide sustenance to a woman who has borne him children, so that she can raise them:

137. If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.[2]

Alimony has also been discussed in the Code of Justinian.[3]

The modern concept of alimony is derived from English ecclesiastical courts that awarded alimony in cases of separation and divorce.

Post-divorce or permanent alimony was also based on the notion that the marriage continued, as ecclesiastical courts could only award a divorce a mensa et thora, similar to a legal separation today. As divorce did not end the marriage, the husband's duty to support his wife remained intact.[4]

That's good an' all but largely irrelevant to modern day life. Many laws go back hundreds of years, for example the Magna Carta is still (partly) in use today, its age does not invalidate that the law or mean that it is not appropriate or suitable for modern life. Fortunately the legal systems in place, in most countries, allows for laws to be modified or, even, repealed in cases where it is no longer suitable for the society it serves.

[May90]

Marriage is betting that someone else will love you enough to not take half your shit.

And I don't bet.

I'm curious: am I the only guy here who doesn't relate marriage to financial question? My parents married each other because they loved each other, and that was it. Lived happily in marriage for 20+ years, and still have warm feelings towards each other, even though no longer married and live together. Are they aliens or something?

[SodiumChloride]

MMO-Champion Gen OT should have a very well reasoned and calm reaction to this topic.

Divorce is scary but avoiding marriage because you might get divorced is like avoiding driving a car because you might get in an accident. There's nothing wrong with people who decide they never want or need to drive a car but the reason shouldn't be fear of screwing up.

Why use driving a car as the go to analogy?

Why not use, say, something like wingsuit flying or cave diving?

In every activity you have to weight the cost + risk vs benefit ratio. If the ratio looks bad to you, you obviously shouldn't do it - fear in this case is justified and is protecting you.

[Mehrunes]

I've read all of your posts on joint property (I think) and I've done some looking around about it, but I don't think I fully comprehend your point. I was hoping you could elaborate on it for me, if you have the time.

Thanks!

All parties in joint ownership of property own the entirety of it. Not a part of it, that would be different types of collective ownership. For example, say you and your spouse only own a single banana. You don't own half of the banana, you own all of the banana. And you have all the ownership rights to it and can exert them. In some jurisdictions, in some cases an OK from the other spouse may be required, but it's usually things related to the house. But since it's only a banana, even though it's all you have, you can even eat it without sharing it with your spouse or just throw it away. But since your spouse has the same ownership rights, it's not a reality where you are the sole owner of everything. And during the divorce, you get half of the banana. As such, you lost half of your property. And so did your spouse.

I've noticed that many people here see the world only in extremes: "Either you defend males and attack females, or you defend females and attack males". Why can't people realize that it is possible to be objective with regards to both genders, without a silly sexist bias? If you disagree that males are treated unjustly, compared to females, then you are "white knight"; if you disagree that females are treated unjustly, compared to males, then you are "woman hater". Like, what the ookin' hork?

Not sure if serious.

Wasn't invented by religion. Wanna try again?

Keyword: nowadays. It may have not been invented by religion, but it has been shaped for it by centuries. It is slowly changing, but for example even secular ceremonies can be modeled after religious ones. Though the claim it's "just" religious is off.

[Deleted]

I'm curious: am I the only guy here who doesn't relate marriage to financial question? My parents married each other because they loved each other, and that was it. Lived happily in marriage for 20+ years, and still have warm feelings towards each other, even though no longer married and live together. Are they aliens or something?

My parents are the same, and so are my grandparents. Though they are still married.

But then I look at my Aunts and Uncles, who've married and remarried numerous times. Then I look at the statistics of divorce rates currently, and I come to the conclusion that there's been a shift somewhere, we aren't our parents, and we don't see marriage the same way. I'm sure some people still do, and those that find each other and make a marriage work should be incredibly happy that they've done so, but I think the numbers are dwindling for those sorts of people, sadly.