On Love and the institute of Marriage.

MahoganyDawn · Post by **MahoganyDawn** » Thu May 15, 2003 11:04 am

Sir Diddimus wrote:
Lost Traveler wrote:Ok Sir Diddimus is the official Ross of the group.

Didn't you read my post fully?

I will not be "That Guy"!!!!!!!!!!!

*laughs so hard she spews lemonade on her screen*

Gee thanks!

interf4ce · Post by **interf4ce** » Thu May 15, 2003 11:06 am

im sure marriage works for some people. after mine though i will NEVER get married again. a life of sin works out the best for me.

actually the only people in my family who have had a successful marriage would be my grandparents on my mothers side.

my view has become very bleak on it. just know what youre getting into before you do it.

pryjmaty · Post by **pryjmaty** » Thu May 15, 2003 11:10 am

Lost Traveler wrote:

Marriage is only so the female can take a males property, if he dosnt meet her expectations or pisses her off, It serves no other purpose

I find it very sad that you have been hurt so very badly.

Lost Traveler · Post by **Lost Traveler** » Thu May 15, 2003 11:12 am

LadyIvanna wrote:
Lost Traveler wrote:

Marriage is only so the female can take a males property, if he dosnt meet her expectations or pisses her off, It serves no other purpose

I find it very sad that you have been hurt so very badly.

No no not me, hehe Ive never even dated :shock:

Thats just from observations.

pryjmaty · Post by **pryjmaty** » Thu May 15, 2003 11:34 am

LT, all females are not gold diggers.
When I divorced my 1st husband, I left with my children and clothing only, oh, and $50 per week in child support. He got the $150,000 house, $50,000 worth of antiques, the brand new Explorer, the brand new Ranger, the set of china worth $8,000, the dog, the 2 cats, the fucking blender and coffeemaker....need I go on? He got every fucking thing.
When I met Doc, he was homeless and penniless.
As long as I have my children, I couldn't give a rat's ass about possessions. The only care I have about them is that I have enough to adequatly provide for the midgets.
I repeat.....ALL females are not gold diggers and trying to see what they can get from the male.

Lost Traveler · Post by **Lost Traveler** » Thu May 15, 2003 11:42 am

eeek actually didnt mean to imply that (golddigging is intentionally going after the property). And my statment isnt suppose to be read with such depth that why the

jenna · Post by **jenna** » Thu May 15, 2003 12:07 pm

LadyIvanna wrote:I repeat.....ALL females are not gold diggers and trying to see what they can get from the male.

Yes!!!!!!!!!!! *does a cheer for LadyIvanna*
i've dated guys with money before. They turned out to be obnoxious jerks, so i left before entering into marriage with them, and without taking a cent of their money. When i wanted out of the relationship, i wanted OUT, not to be still living off of their money.
The Jenna Hubby Monster is a starving artist and we live in a trailer. But, the important part is that we love eachother and are happy. i don't care about the rest. i believe that i am far "richer" with my Hubby that actually loves me and brings happyness into my life than i ever would have been had i married Mr. Lives in Sequoia Hills or Mr. Has a Second Home In Lake Tahoe And Third Home in Fl.

div · Post by **div** » Thu May 15, 2003 12:25 pm

women don't have to be gold-diggers. the state does the gold-digging for them. A good friend of mine got a divorce last year. he married the girl because he got her pregnant, which is just dumb. he didn't love her, he just thought it was the "right" thing to do. They were together for 5 years and had 2 more kids before he came to his senses.
When they got the divorce the state mandatory child support for 3 kids is 49% of his income. And then, since she quit her $45k/yr job and went to work for a bookstore making minimum wage, he had to pay her alimoney as well so that she could "maintain her style of living".

the system sucks. esp from a male point of view.

iblis · Post by **iblis** » Thu May 15, 2003 12:54 pm

div wrote: And then, since she quit her $45k/yr job and went to work for a bookstore making minimum wage, he had to pay her alimoney as well so that she could "maintain her style of living".

the system sucks. esp from a male point of view.

This is horse shit.

I would have to rectify her "style of living" to include a nice cold morgue and a medical examiner trying to figure out how I got her head to go around that many times.

This is the primary reason why I do not believe in "marriage".

Lost Traveler · Post by **Lost Traveler** » Thu May 15, 2003 1:06 pm

Okay I seem to have caused a tangent by accident. I admit I used He/She Male/Female (me very bad). let me clarify the statment.

What the point of the statement was, was that marriage out side of religous reasons serves only as a way to attempt to punish each other when the relationship gose sour. And servse no other purpose (in the modern western world).

sorry, and pls continue with the orginal thread.

actually now that Janell quted it it is writen in an asshole way, eeek my apologies (hehe now to edit it)

JaNell · Post by **JaNell** » Thu May 15, 2003 1:41 pm

Lost Traveler wrote:Marriage is only so the female can take a males property, if he dosnt meet her expectations or pisses her off, It serves no other purpose

Bullshit.

And I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who was left with two car payments, a car repair payment, and equipment (music) bills to pay off, by myself, at the end of my last relationship.

Did I mention that I lost my job when the guy disappeared? I had no one to watch my oldest - we'd traded shifts. Feed a child on that.

Some men dick over women. Some women dick over men.

I like being married, and luckily, I'm married to a great guy.

iblis · Post by **iblis** » Thu May 15, 2003 10:31 pm

JaNell wrote:Some men dick over women. Some women dick over men.

You are correct. But alimony (for anyone) is still horse shit.

JaNell · Post by **JaNell** » Thu May 15, 2003 11:11 pm

iblis wrote:
JaNell wrote:Some men dick over women. Some women dick over men.

You are correct. But alimony (for anyone) is still horse shit.

Not at all. If one partner works their ass off to put the other through school, the agreement being that once through school the working partner will reap the benefits of an increased income, and the other divorces them, breaking the agreement, then alimony is definitely justified.

It's the same, IMO, when two partners agree that one will give up a career to raise the children (something benefitting both) and the other one rips them off by dumping them. The time lost due to child rearing WILL have a negative effect on their ability to make money - and since a financial agreement was broken, they're owed money.

Some, usually men, insist that their partner stay home even after the kids have grown up, or without even having kids, because it benefits them to have everything taken care of for them - social things, dinner, and such - and those partners, when divorced, are left without any of the retirement benefits they would have had, had they worked outside the home. Again, they provided a service, so they are owed something for it. It's only fair.

iblis · Post by **iblis** » Thu May 15, 2003 11:20 pm

JaNell wrote:
iblis wrote:
JaNell wrote:Some men dick over women. Some women dick over men.

You are correct. But alimony (for anyone) is still horse shit.

Not at all. If one partner works their ass off to put the other through school, the agreement being that once through school the working partner will reap the benefits of an increased income, and the other divorces them, breaking the agreement, then alimony is definitely justified.

This should happen in a legal contract outside of marriage.

It's the same, IMO, when two partners agree that one will give up a career to raise the children (something benefitting both) and the other one rips them off by dumping them. The time lost due to child rearing WILL have a negative effect on their ability to make money - and since a financial agreement was broken, they're owed money.

Again, legal contract, outside of the marriage deal.

Some, usually men, insist that their partner stay home even after the kids have grown up, or without even having kids, because it benefits them to have everything taken care of for them - social things, dinner, and such - and those partners, when divorced, are left without any of the retirement benefits they would have had, had they worked outside the home. Again, they provided a service, so they are owed something for it. It's only fair.

If someone demands such things from their partner, it's most likely not because they love them.

Even if it is, it's still crap.

JaNell · Post by **JaNell** » Thu May 15, 2003 11:26 pm

No, not really.
If I become a rich & famous writer or whatever, Cam helped with that, so OF COURSE I owe him something if we were to divorce.

And, um, there's a reason why it's called a "marriage CONTRACT".

shakes head at general male opinions on child support, alimony, and equal wages

iblis · Post by **iblis** » Fri May 16, 2003 7:05 am

JaNell wrote:No, not really.
If I become a rich & famous writer or whatever, Cam helped with that, so OF COURSE I owe him something if we were to divorce.

And, um, there's a reason why it's called a "marriage CONTRACT".

shakes head at general male opinions on child support, alimony, and equal wages

And this is why I don't believe in marriage. Sure, Cam helped you. And yes, you do owe him something in return.

But I believe that marriage and the rights to your belongings should be separate. After all, marriage is supposed to be about love. Or did everyone else kind of miss that theme when attending and/or participating in the horribly long, drawn-out ceremonies?

Marriage should be a "love contract". Your proverbial fat cash should be a separate agreement.

But this is all personal opinion. Maybe it just makes it easier for people to understand when they consolidate their promises into one big package deal.

div · Post by **div** » Fri May 16, 2003 8:08 am

okay, i've got to say this. First off, JaNell... what you're describing does not sound like a relationship based on love. It sounds alot more like a business.
I'm not married. I've no wish to become married. I have, however, been with my curerent girlfriend for 8 years now. If she were to lose her job, I would support her (how, I don't know, but i'd find a way). I would do this because i love her. Not because I owed her anything, or was expecting to be repaid at some point in the future. You talk about people being owed something from a relationship. Relationships are not about money. Relationships are about love. If I were to break up with my girlfriend tomorrow, I would not "owe" her anything. Why would I? We got together for love, not as part of an 8-year business plan. She supports and loves me, and I support and love her. Period.

you talk about women staying home to take care of kids, the house etc... and then you state that if the relationship ends, the woman is owed something for this? Bullshit. It's a mutual descision between the two inividuals for what they feel is in their best interests. you can't turn around at a later date and say, "You owe me money for all these years of work i did at home, and for the impact it had upon my career." If that were the case, the guy should be able to turn right back around and say, "you owe me all the money I spent making sure you had that home, and for the food you ate, the clothes you wore, the cars you drove, etc..."
It's a partnership. No one owes anyone monetary compensation for anything. If you try to say otherwise, you're trying to assign a dollar value to love, and what exactly does that make you?

and before anyone takes this as more woman bashing... this isn't about men or women. If you go through everything I've said and reverse the sex of every gender-specific word I've used, I still stand behind it.

/rant off

KL · Post by KL » Fri May 16, 2003 8:16 am

It used to be the courts held marriage as a special thing, ordained by god, yadda yadda yadda. But they truthfully view it as a contract. The religious ceremony is just window dressing. You have one of those, but don't get a marriage licence, you aint married. It's that simple.

When you breach a contract, or wish to terminate a contract, it always costs you money, pure and simple. That's just the nature of contract law. At least one of the standard remedies to breach is not availible in marriage. "Specific performance" is when you take someone to court to force them to live up to their end of the bargain.

So it could be worse. The court could force you to stay and be a good spouse.

And I don't know about the Eastern District judges, but over here in the Middle District, alimony is pretty rare. But child support is not to be messed around with. Having an arrearage is the e ticket to time wearing an orange jumpsuit.

JaNell · Post by **JaNell** » Fri May 16, 2003 9:09 am

KL wrote:It used to be the courts held marriage as a special thing, ordained by god, yadda yadda yadda. But they truthfully view it as a contract. The religious ceremony is just window dressing. You have one of those, but don't get a marriage licence, you aint married. It's that simple.

When you breach a contract, or wish to terminate a contract, it always costs you money, pure and simple. That's just the nature of contract law. At least one of the standard remedies to breach is not availible in marriage. "Specific performance" is when you take someone to court to force them to live up to their end of the bargain.

So it could be worse. The court could force you to stay and be a good spouse.

Hear, hear.

Again, hence the term "Marriage Contract". That contract is a legal agreement between two people, and in a perfect world, even two or more.

Cam and I would be together with or without the contract; the contract is a legal agreement. The love isn't. Why do people keep confusing the two?

And no, one partner staying home with kids so that the other can pursue a career is an agreement that BOTH will benefit from the arrangement - which is only possible if the spouses stay married. The assumption that child-rearing is universally fulfillingand not real work is sexist, since it's usually the woman who has to drop out of the work force while the man continues up the ladder. Very few people are as un-employable as a middle-aged woman with no work experience outside the home for a decade or more.
If that arrangement was made, it was made with the agreement that he or she would benefit long-term from that time, not just get room & board for the duration of child rearing.

Anywho. I've been on both sides of this issue, truly - although I've never received, or asked for, alimony, I have both been and had a spouse who stayed at home with the child.

Nemesis · Post by **Nemesis** » Fri May 16, 2003 9:23 am

*If you like Pina Colada's... And getting caught in the Rain...* :lol: