(05-21-2015 03:14 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

Quote:But, unless you're going to enforce marriage to such a degree that it does trap people in abusive marriages, how else do you argue we should do it?

I would apply a termination clause for abuse, infidelity, or whatever both Parties argee to.

Can't you already do that, at least for the first decade or so of marriage? And if you can't, as long as the financial repercussions have no bearing on a parties sex, I don't see how it's a mens rights issue and not just a people issue.

(05-21-2015 03:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 03:14 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

Quote:But, unless you're going to enforce marriage to such a degree that it does trap people in abusive marriages, how else do you argue we should do it?

I would apply a termination clause for abuse, infidelity, or whatever both Parties argee to.

Can't you already do that, at least for the first decade or so of marriage? And if you can't, as long as the financial repercussions have no bearing on a parties sex, I don't see how it's a mens rights issue and not just a people issue.

Are you kidding? Men get hosed everytime. The woman can be riding the c*ck carosel with video evidence and will still walk with half the money and 60% of your paycheck.

(05-21-2015 03:22 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 03:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 03:14 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

Quote:But, unless you're going to enforce marriage to such a degree that it does trap people in abusive marriages, how else do you argue we should do it?

I would apply a termination clause for abuse, infidelity, or whatever both Parties argee to.

Can't you already do that, at least for the first decade or so of marriage? And if you can't, as long as the financial repercussions have no bearing on a parties sex, I don't see how it's a mens rights issue and not just a people issue.

Are you kidding? Men get hosed everytime. The woman can be riding the **** carosel with reckless abandon and will still get half the money and 60% of your paycheck.

I know of man who is getting a large amount of alimony as his wife earned significantly more than he did, so your statement that this happens everytime is false. If there are inequalities in the system based in the sex of those taking part, they need to be fixed. It's like you're too worked up over this issue to understand I agree with you without badmouthing 51% of the population. You've got issues.

(05-21-2015 03:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:I want to be clear, my intent in this is NOT to "trap'" people in abusive marriages. My intent is merely to have them agree to terms as in any other negotiation and be held to them as in any other contract. It forces people to understand exactly what the marriage agreement is and isn't and ostensibly forces them to be much more careful with entering into any such agreement, and who they enter into it with:
David and Heather, Allison and Bill, Sweyn and Fido, Adam and Steve (and don't forget Gary!)

But, unless you're going to enforce marriage to such a degree that it does trap people in abusive marriages, how else do you argue we should do it?

Quote:In your grandmother's case, she could separate from your grandfather, but she would remain married under the law and would have to prove her allegations of abuse in a criminal court of law in order to receive any goodies.

Or she'd have to educate herself and stand up for herself and make her agreement work. Or she could, if she had brains, explicitly specify the terms of her marriage in advance, and specify that "if I ever allege you abuse me, even without any proof in a court of law, I have the right to divorce you and get money from you in court" and see if the grandfather would agree to marry under those conditions. If he did, then no problem. If he thinks that's ridiculous (and I suspect he just might want to at least make her at least have to prove her allegations in a criminal court, which seems totally reasonable), then I'll paraphrase what you previously stated about no good marriage ending in divorce (which I can definitely dispute if you'd care to), bad marriage avoided and no divorce happens.

Jesus christ you want people to put in abuse clauses in their marriage, and use their lack of doing so is their fault? Holy crap that's about the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

Only if that is important to them. If they say the standard things like "until death, or poorer, in sickness, or worse" then that covers their terms and now they'd have to live by what they agreed to. As with any other contract in court, do not agree to something you don;'t want to live by, because your agreements will be enforced. We are a nation of laws, supposedly, so what is so wrong with that? make any agreement you want. Steve and Steve, Bill and Amy, whatever, jjust specify the terms and live up to them.

Have you ever looked at a rental agreement for a rent-a-car? Have you ever actually stood there and even read the entire thing, much less understood it and researched it's possible implications for you? What about a Mortgage Agreement? Do you vet those? Do the words have any meaning to you or anyone else? Should they? What about the Software licensing Agreements you click the "I Agree" buttons on? Should you just be able to tell the court "I changed my mind, I didn't mean it. Release me from what I agreed to with no consequences?"

Why on earth would any remotely sane person not take a marriage agreement at least as seriously as those? because they are unenforceable, and we know that. Why don't we apply the same standard to all other contracts as we apply to marriage contracts? Why not?

What is wrong with specifying and understanding the terms and conditions you are agreeing to like any other agreement?

My point is no one takes marriage seriously and that is the real problem. No one understands it until it is too late. We take it too lightly and it costs our society financially more than we can afford.

I'm not saying people can't still just shack up (they can and do--no one's stopping them.)

I would like to see financial incentives for real commitments. But some couple wants to have a marriage with a renewal date--great--as long as the BOTH agree to it, I'll support it.

Again, I am ONLY talking about the LEGAL marriage contract. Religious marriages are best left to the individual sects and denominations. For those who want that stamp of approval, they'd have to meet the religious definition that matches their ideas. Shop around, there's plenty of choices.

(05-21-2015 03:26 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 03:22 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 03:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 03:14 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

Quote:But, unless you're going to enforce marriage to such a degree that it does trap people in abusive marriages, how else do you argue we should do it?

I would apply a termination clause for abuse, infidelity, or whatever both Parties argee to.

Can't you already do that, at least for the first decade or so of marriage? And if you can't, as long as the financial repercussions have no bearing on a parties sex, I don't see how it's a mens rights issue and not just a people issue.

Are you kidding? Men get hosed everytime. The woman can be riding the **** carosel with reckless abandon and will still get half the money and 60% of your paycheck.

I know of man who is getting a large amount of alimony as his wife earned significantly more than he did, so your statement that this happens everytime is false. If there are inequalities in the system based in the sex of those taking part, they need to be fixed. It's like you're too worked up over this issue to understand I agree with you without badmouthing 51% of the population. You've got issues.

There's a lot of ground to cover here and this thread is moving fast, but for those reading and interested, it points out to just how complicated a marriage contract really is. We don't treat legal marriage with the respect it deserves, and that is 75% of the problem.

Straight or gay, the same issues are there. The whole push for gay legal marriage makes me laugh. Google "gay divorce' and your head will start spinning. The fun is only beginning, but ironically, it may help bring a more sane solution to the real problem: Legal Marriage is BULLS***.

While men get hosed most often, the poster above is right, it is and should be viewed as a PEOPLE problem, not a men vs women problem. And when there are children involved, that where the real damage happens. I could care less about the house, the car, the pet, the jewelry. I am appalled at what Legal Marriage does to children as it is negatively enforced.

As to applying "termination clause for abuse, infidelity, or whatever both Parties agree to," I'd be very specific as to exactly what those terms meant, the instances they could and could not be applied, and the standard for measuring them in a court of law. I'd personally specify criminal court with a jury only. Mere allegations would not rise to the level of anything but summary dismissal, and I'd specify that explicitly in any agreement as well, signed by both parties.

(05-21-2015 02:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  What's wrong with just people a peoples rights advocate?

Your perspective on this is the correct one, UCFo8. It should be a people issue. However in practice it is far from it, and that has multiplied the problems immensely. But your intuition is spot on. Some people are more equal than others. Hence, slavery returns under a new euphemism (not that it ever went away.)

Look up "Social Security Act Title IV, Part D", to begin see how to ignore supposedly inalienable human rights and the US Constitution. Every man even considering having sex with someone should make himself intimately 9pardon the pun!) familiar with understanding every single word of this nefarious law. Every. Single. Word. I've read it, have you?

(05-21-2015 11:18 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:If we got back to intact families taking care of themselves again we wouldn't need much government.

No one is arguing against intact families or their benefits to society, people are arguing that you shouldn't be able to legally discriminate or limit peoples rights and protection to leave a marriage.

My grandmother was in an awful marriage for much of her life, not to my grandfather as he had already passed away young, but to my step grandfather. But despite the abuse that she received, she stayed with him because she had no real education to rely on and socially speaking, divorces weren't acceptable in that time.

Important to remember this is 2015, not 1930 or 1850. Women have rights and have achieved a level of equality not even dreamed of back in those times (which is a good thing.)

If your grandmother agreed to live with the man until death, for worse, in sickness and for poorer, and he also agreed, then what is your complaint? I don't understand. Wouldn't "abuse" be "worse?" Now do you see why people would be better served to take the time to specify more clearly and define things so they both understood? Wouldn't that have remedied the problem better? If both agree to terms, then really where is the problem when/i8f something goes wrong?


I'm not trying to retroactively apply standards today to things that didn't exist back then. But in most cases, if a woman is uneducated today, it is more her own fault than oppression. She can go earn a degree or education, she can work on her own, she can live as a single person without retribution, she can vote, she can enter into financial and legal contracts, etc... those things all exist today. So why do we treat women with the disrespect that things are the same for them as in the 1850s, or even the 1950s. They clearly are not, but the law and the court system disrespects women in this way. To the detriment of women, children and society as a whole.

We are the People, not just the men, not just the women, not just the children, not just the blacks, the white, the whatever you want, we are the PEOPLE. except when we are the slaves. Because the government makes money off destroying lives. The people in power have figured out how to do it, and they have no desire to change it. Ever see a judges' salary? Ever vote for judges in elections (forget the many who are appointed with no say from you)? How hard is it to find any real information on judicial election candidates before you go in to the booth and see their names? Ever wonder why that is? Do you even know who your judges are in your local jurisdiction? The ones who control your life and finances? Do you even know their names or anything about them? Do you know how much they make, what they believe, how they do their job? Do you know you are as much a slave as Neo in the Matrix was and you are blissfully unaware that you have control of your life and are living it? You are a battery, son. That is all.

(05-21-2015 02:40 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 02:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 02:19 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 02:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 02:08 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Simple, if you file for divorce and there is no proof of abuse or infidelity, you go your own way. No alimony, no child support. No reward for breaking your vows because you want to be "free" and f*ck othe men.

That's completely unrealistic, and unfair to the parent who often takes on the burden of the child instead of their financial life. Most importantly, child support would harm more children than you could imagine, and would result in far more mouths for the government to feed. Seems odd you would include child support in with this issue though, one is a legal contract, the other is a biological being literally created by the two adults.

She should have thought of that before filing for divorce. And it wouldn't hurt the child because the policy would lead to less divorce. If the man can financially support the child and the woman can't, maybe the child belongs with dad... unless he doesn't want it... in that case, maybe a child support mediation agreement is appropriate.

Well your issues with women are pretty well noted throughout this messageboard, Mr. "I don't think a women can be president", so your opinion is kind of tainted. That being said, not all children are conceived in marriage, that's certainly not a new phenomenon, so what then? Furthermore, your post doesn't really address my main argument, that being good marriages don't end in divorce. If we're simply preventing people in abusive situations out of financial fear, and let's not mince words there are lots of those relationships out there, we need to reevaluate the reasons why we're actually doing this.

Because divorce laws are unequal and women are the ones filing to break the contract 90% of the time. And damn straight I am a mens' rights advocate. The question is why you aren't?

Pay attention, readers, this is a good dialog of the facts as they are currently enforced vs the ignorance (unintended, I'm not picking on you UCF08--the Government WANTS people to be ignorant so the GOVERNMENT can TRAP them)

The person who leaves should be able to prove grounds for leaving in a criminal court by a jury of peers, unless there are no children. Then it's just two stupid people fighting over money and let them go back to enforcing what the original agreement was. Again, you'd have to be careful of the words you say in your legal marriage vows, as they would be enforced just as you said them, lest they come back to bite you--men and women.

As to children, I believe it would be wise to specify if you are going outside the traditional vows, exactly what would happen in case of divorce and children beforehand. Not romantic, I know, but then if you want romance, you probably also naively believe that love is a feeling, not an action.

Attraction is a feeling, not love. Many times, if you love someone, you do expressly what does NOT feel good to you, or is hard, burdensome, or hurtful, because it is the right thing to do, and you love them. Getting up at 3 in the morning to take care of a sick baby doesn't feel too good, especially when you are already exhausted from a hard day's work, or if you are sick yourself; changing the diaper of your wheelchair-bound wife doesn't feel good, and smells, but those are just two examples of real love.

I keep coming back to "whatever terms you specify for the legal marriage should be fully legally enforced."

So If you want the option of divorce (some do, some don't) then state it clearly in your vows of marriage contract so everyone understands the deal up front and no one is blindsided by assuming what they say is valid (it isn't right now--hence my assertion that legal marriage is currently unenforceable), and further specify to the degree you and your potential spouse feel necessary knowing that you will have to live the letter of your words just like every single other contract you involve yourself in.

how did we get on divorce?

(05-21-2015 03:22 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 03:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Can't you already do that, at least for the first decade or so of marriage? And if you can't, as long as the financial repercussions have no bearing on a parties sex, I don't see how it's a mens rights issue and not just a people issue.

Are you kidding? Men get hosed everytime. The woman can be riding the c*ck carosel with video evidence and will still walk with half the money and 60% of your paycheck.

Important to point out it's tax free money, too. The person who pays (generally the man, which is discriminatory) pays the taxes on the money he never sees as well. That's one reason why so many skip out on it, and are in the poorhouse and such. They are effectively enslaved to the GOVERNMENT TRAP at that point, and they can be thrown in jail at any time for debt--against the Constitution except for this case. Can you say "Giant Loophole of rights discrimination?"

(05-21-2015 04:58 PM)fsquid Wrote:  how did we get on divorce?

Rubio using his own money to pay for things instead of seeking some government program or handout led me to say if more families stayed intact and care for their own, we wouldn't need all the government programs, or nearly as many, making the government much smaller. UCF08 put in a story about his grandmother and how she felt trapped in a bad marriage to his step-grandfather, allegedly abusive (though I don't believe he mentioned any charges being brought in court, or a ruling on the merits or validity, much less proper subject-matter or personal jurisdiction in the potential case), so he wanted the option of divorce for those situations.

I then said, 'fine, what did she agree to, what were her vows? If she agreed to it, then why complain, better to enforce agreements as stated than let people shirk out, as you can't get away with walking away from other contractual agreements. If they both agreed divorce was okay, then good as well. But if they had a difference of opinion, you have to look at what the original agreement was and go by that.'

I am not as troubled by Rubio using his own retirement money as I would be if he was say misdirecting political funds, as has been alleged of Hilliary, or if he was receiving food stamps (or EBT now) instead of spending his own money, like many appear to do these days. Stuff like that would bother me a heck of a lot more than him cashing out some retirement and paying whatever the stated penalty and taxes were to buy his fridge and send his kids to a non-government school Sounds like he knows how to spend his money better than the government does. It's his money, leave him alone with it.