[Whostheboss]

Originally Posted by grimlock

I know i must probably get married eventually, because for societal reasons and mainly is a must for having kids (for me) but the mental gap is still so large there are many questions I required to be answered before I will willingly go there.
I don't mind the destination - as I see no other option (eternal bachelorhood is not an option although i wouldn't mind fucking mad bitches into senility however a recent visit to disneyland in which my car was vandalized (in HK, of all places) for being too showy) has persuaded me that most of humanity is envious and hateful, thus marriage is an act of self-preservation unless someone knows a locale with friendlier natives..

In all seriousness, chocolate, vanilla, or EVEN strawberry - it's all individual preference.

But can the haters just stop hating for once.
Yes, this means those who accuse others of poo-pooing their life choices while they are the ones themselves who are hypocritically NOT ALLOWING others to feel good about their own lives.

[P1]

I've been married for almost 11 years and could not in a million years see it any other way. We have a son now, and there's no better feeling than being a family.

[V1.47fan]

Originally Posted by Billup

You could just be like that guy on TLC with five wives and have big orgies every night?

Those Mormons know how to keep their bitches in line.

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by grimlock

In all seriousness, chocolate, vanilla, or EVEN strawberry - it's all individual preference.

I was going to give you a +1, but not for Strawberry. Call me a bigot all you want, but people who like strawberry, there is just something wrong

[carve]

Gridlock, templer and boss; not hating...just asking a question that's seldom asked because people take it for granted. The institution of marriage has been destroyed by the state to the detriment of men, at least in the western world. So, what's in it for men

To paraphrase 1love, if you can't answer "what's in it for me", then you don't understand why you're doing it. Cultural inertia

It doesn't mean you have to remain a bachelor. Do what Bobbles is doing; just don't involve the state. That's my plan, because there's nothing about my relationship that'd be enhanced by contractual obligation that in no way is in my legal interests (and that's all we're referring to here- legal marriage)

I found a great thread on reddit about what happened to marriage, but my phone won't let me copy n paste. I highly recommend reading the first post, particularly if you're interested in supporting and understand the traditional or religious notions of marriage

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/c...n_of_marriage/

Another interesting perspective; typically a contract has requirements for both parties. There are really only legal requirements for the breadwinner in marriage, who's almost always the man. A contract has remedies for non-performance and penalties for breach. Now, there are only remedies for the woman and only penalties for the man. You can't sue your ex for stepping out on you for any reason, but she can sue you for EITHER of you stepping out or getting bored. The state can even change the TERMS of your contract at any time, making it meaningless. So...what's in it for men to be in this legal obligation, particularly if you're not interested in kids. Again- go have your religious ceremony if that's your thing, but what was the advantage of involving the state.

People here are defending their own emotional fairy tale concept of marriage, but nobody here but me and bobbles have said a word about the legal institution of marriage in 2015

[monkeybingo]

Originally Posted by Whostheboss

lol what's a Stacy?

Stacy in America is usally referred as the slutty girl

[UncleWede]

carve,

IF you think that co-habituating in most US states will absolve you of the alimony, better check your local state's definition of common-law marriage. Bobbles is lucky, apparently there isn't such a thing in Cali (much to my surprise!)

Also, in almost every state, you can't have the religious marriage without the state's approval, which means they are involved in your "contract"

And while the courts may throw out your pre-nup, they will still honor your divorce agreement, as long as both parties are shown what the normal dissolution COULD be. My first wife would have been entitled to a bit more than she got (nothing) but that's because she was actually NOT a money-grabbing whore, and the kid was proven to not be mine. Heck, she gave me the new car and made payments on it for almost 18 months before she asked if I could take over the last couple.

Granted, this is a story of the EXCEPTION to what normally happens in most divorces, but our divorce wasn't about hatred and revenge, just making good on mistakes that were made.

[carve]

No common law marriage in my state, thankfully. What an awful misandrist law- entering you into a legal contract without your consent. My GF has her own place anyway- we just go back and forth.

How is the state going to restrict religious ceremonies? They won't- do whatever you want in church. All the state can do is not recognize it- not bust the doors down and stop it. I know several couples who did the ceremony without the paperwork.

Again- what's in it for men to sign the contract?

Aside; The whole gay marriage controversy is asking the wrong question; the question should be why is the state so involved in marriage, to the point where they can prevent it from happening? They should ONLY grant civil unions with a few specific rights and responsibilities, and leave the marriage to the couple, their friends, family and religion

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by carve

Aside; The whole gay marriage controversy is asking the wrong question; the question should be why is the state so involved in marriage, to the point where they can prevent it from happening? They should ONLY grant civil unions with a few specific rights and responsibilities, and leave the marriage to the couple, their friends, family and religion

Legislation isn't there yet. Your "spouse" has inherent rights, for your estate, for your treatment if you can't speak for yourself, for the ability to visit your in either a hospital or prison. Plus the whole tax filing thingy. While I agree there is a huge social tradition now, there is also the civil/legal tradition that none of our politicians have the jewels to address.

[davis449]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

carve,
IF you think that co-habituating in most US states will absolve you of the alimony, better check your local state's definition of common-law marriage. Bobbles is lucky, apparently there isn't such a thing in Cali (much to my surprise!)

Very few states have common law marriage. Only 8, as a matter of fact. CA isn't one of them. In TX, thank God, cohabitating is not grounds for being termed common law married. In TX, you have to have a WRITTEN agreement that says you are married (this can be outside religious and governmental approval\execution) AND have presented yourself to pretty much everyone you know and governmental authorities as being "married" (so, no, "partnerships" won't get you legally bound in TX either).

I am with carve, I am keeping the gov., society, and religion the fuck out of my relationship.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by pgviper

Problem is, most people don't respect the idea of marriage and like you said, see it as a contract. A contract that can be broken with lawyers and enough money.

No...no it cannot be.

[Sara]

Originally Posted by monkeybingo

To be honest, Man can do well when they are alone. females are tend to be insecure when they alone and feels secured when they are bond legally. I am no psychologist but I think my answer is 100% correct.

Wrong.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Sara504

Wrong.

Nice try insecure female.

[upstatedoc]

Originally Posted by monkeybingo

Stacy in America is usally referred as the slutty girl

I thought it was Lisa?

[upstatedoc]

Originally Posted by Sara504

Wrong.

Hey! Sara's out of banned camp!

[Sara]

Originally Posted by upstatedoc

Hey! Sara's out of banned camp!

[squishy]

welcome back Sara!

God damn I missed those legs

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

Women do NOT always get the alimony. I personally know men who ended up getting a check every month from their ex, and one for taking care of the kids too.

IF you think that co-habituating in most US states will absolve you of the alimony, better check your local state's definition of common-law marriage. Bobbles is lucky, apparently there isn't such a thing in Cali (much to my surprise!)

Absolutely the Primary Wage earner gets the responsibility of writing the check. I was deemed the primary wage earner even though she had a career but refused to work more than 2 days a week, and thru forensic accounting was shown to have created her own account and funneled thousands from the joint account but that did not count in Cali, actually judge said to me and paraphrasing your fault for trusting based on all the testimony I heard.

But in Cali there is palimony which has been proven and defended in court. Helps I have a really close child hood friend who is a family law attorney. So even if there's no common law in Cali I am not off the hook as it was called but I have no worries. Psuedo Wifey has the same assets and maybe even more if we were to cash out then me and I have no intention of taking hers and she no intention in mine.

Again bottom line marriage does not guarantee happiness, does not guarantee basic human traits nor help make a person decent. That's part of who we are and we were imprinted in our formative years. Marriage isn't for everyone just like religion isn't. Does not matter if my previous marriage ended bad nor if anyone else's is great. Good for you good for me actually.
Having a well adjusted family is also not a product of marriage but a product of how the family acts together whether or not they are married. The fact is the institution of marriage does not guarantee anything and is diluted in this day and age by society and the fact that in the 1940's no fault divorce became a legal practice and you can exit anytime you want. Blame the lawyers if you want, I blame society myself included. BTW the patronizing by several individuals in this thread says a lot about who you are really down deep. I'm done.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by carve

Aside; The whole gay marriage controversy is asking the wrong question; the question should be why is the state so involved in marriage, to the point where they can prevent it from happening? They should ONLY grant civil unions with a few specific rights and responsibilities, and leave the marriage to the couple, their friends, family and religion

We're cool no worries, like I said before different strokes for different folks.

However, I bolded the above for emphasis. This is the single biggest problem in this country with marriage. Totally with you on that.

[V1.47fan]

Originally Posted by Sara504

Wrong.

Glad you're back.

[monkeybingo]

Originally Posted by Sara504

Wrong.

oh well you are an exception

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by carve

What's the advantage? It's basically nothing more than a contract with the state that does two things

1) Gives your spouse inherentence rights and the right to make certain decisions for each other. It also makes you responsible for each others debts.

2) The state will initiate force to ensure she gets half your stuff if either of you want to end the relationship, regardless of how much of it she earned. She may even make you a slave with alimony- adult-support.

How magical! So...what's the benefit? I think people just do it out of cultural inertia. Except for needy guys of course, who do it so a woman doesn't leave him. I have news for those guys: she can leave you anyway with half your stuff, and if she won't stay with you without a financial contract, she's not worth keeping anyway.

Showing a clip from a fictional movie doesn't really lend much credibility to your argument. It's a movie, with a catchy speech designed to entertain. Maybe bring up some actual laws/legislation if you want to discuss the legal intricacies of marriage? Just a suggestion....

It would also help if you remembered that not too long ago, women in this country did not have legal equality when it came to a lot of things (voting, business, marriage disputes). Laws nowadays are in place to ensure that a wife/mother gets some form of support from a divorcing husband, because in the past husbands would literally ditch their wives and children and leave them with no financial resources (still happens in 3rd world countries).

Do these laws get abused sometimes? Absolutely.

Do women always get half of the estate/possessions/funds/money that a husband owns during a divorce process? It really depends state to state. A lot of times, the wife needs to prove that wealth/resources in question were earned by the husband while she was fulfilling some spousal role (mother, house-keeping, ect.)

Can men take up safeguards against wives that are marrying purely for financial reasons (gold-digging)? Yes, it's called a pre-nuptial.

Honestly, if the contract/legal aspects of marriage are that much of a concern to you as a would-be husband, you probably shouldn't be in that relationship in the first place.