+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 179
  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by neuropsych View Post
    Time change...... 40 years back in time the divorce rate wasnt high, couple used to resolve their own issues and fix it, couples of today instead of resolve issue they divorce or break just for little issues that can be solved, most of divorced this days is cuz the social pages ( facebook, badoo) and apps ( whatsap), btw..... people need to be open mind, I dont support gay marriage but at the end if they wanna be happy and lived together having the same rights like hetero people so hello??? is ok is their issues their problems their genitals, people like to preach the word in underwear. Otherwise.... homosexual behavior exists in animals so is not unnature, education is free, educate yourself a little.
    40 years ago the divorce rate wasn't that high? Where did you get that silly idea? They were every bit as bad then as they are today.

    40 years ago you didn't have an internet so you had to get all your news from Radio, TV, Newspapers and gossip. Just because you didn't hear about it does not mean it didn't happen. Whether couples are straight, gay or related will not make a difference on divorce rates. Perhaps you might want to look at the marriage rate. These days a lot less people are going thru the formality of getting married and wouldn't bother unless there are kids involved. Sometimes they aren't marrying even though in the eyes of the law you are considered married after cohabiting for a certain amount of time (varies on jurisdiction). Actual divorces seldom happen unless there is a dispute about common property splitting and child custody.

    I will give you this though. 50-60 years ago that whole "The woman gets everything" in a divorce settlement situation was a lot worse. Why? Because 50-60 years ago there were a lot more stay-at-home "homemaker" moms than dads. In that situation a woman (or even man) who stayed at home as a homemaker rather than earning a living in the workforce was entitled to alimony. As well the partent that was a homemaker were in 90% of cases often awarded custody of the kids because courts saw the mother that stayed at home with the kids the better parent to care for them. Much to the chagrin of the parent that went out and earned the family income.

    That situation is far less than it was 40-60 years ago. Today it is not possible for one parent to stay at home with the kids unless one of them is making huge amounts of money in their job or is relatively wealthy. These days divcorce settlements entail equally splitting property with consideration on who has the custody of the kids and child support.
    There is nothing noble about being superior to others. True nobility is gained by becoming superior to one's former self.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Mctwattybollox View Post
    Congrats on gay "equality"

    As a side thought:
    Interesting how homosexuals used to be put to death by the church and government and now they are being welcomed with open arms.
    Gay marriage goes against many of the rules of religion, yet now they are encouraging everyone to get hitched lol.

    Just seems weird to me - Im straight, non religious and not bothered by peoples choice of sexuality, before anyone gets all high and mighty.

    Seems to me that there is a hidden agenda here.............. Its not too hard to work out what it is..............
    More marriages = more taxes.

    Married couples are taxed heavier than singles simply because household income comes into play when couples are married and it comes time to calculate write-offs like medical expenses and tax credits. People that are shacked up get to sidestep all that crap.
    There is nothing noble about being superior to others. True nobility is gained by becoming superior to one's former self.

  3. #33
    Conscript Mctwattybollox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    529
    It seems apparent that things have been quite different in the USA than to Europe concerning divorce. When my Parents split up in the 80s I was the only kid in the whole school whos parents had divorced. A decade later and things had changed considerably. We are catching up with you!!!!
    First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
    Finally they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

    ~ Martin Niemöller

  4. #34
    Conscript Mctwattybollox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    More marriages = more taxes.

    Married couples are taxed heavier than singles simply because household income comes into play when couples are married and it comes time to calculate write-offs like medical expenses and tax credits. People that are shacked up get to sidestep all that crap.

    Bingo!!!!!!!!!
    First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
    Finally they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

    ~ Martin Niemöller

  5. #35
    Commoner
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    40 years ago the divorce rate wasn't that high? Where did you get that silly idea? They were every bit as bad then as they are today.
    Here's the facts sir.

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005044.html

    If you go back to the early 1900s divorce rates were less than 10%. People married in the 40's and 50's, my grandparents generation, had divorce rates of 16-23% chance of divorce. People married in the late 70s and early 80s, my parents generation, faced divorce rates of 48-50%. So in other words...when you were growing up, and when you were pondering marriage...the divorce rates you witnessed from previous generations was a fraction of what my generation witnessed.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    40 years ago you didn't have an internet so you had to get all your news from Radio, TV, Newspapers and gossip. Just because you didn't hear about it does not mean it didn't happen. Whether couples are straight, gay or related will not make a difference on divorce rates. Perhaps you might want to look at the marriage rate. These days a lot less people are going thru the formality of getting married and wouldn't bother unless there are kids involved. Sometimes they aren't marrying even though in the eyes of the law you are considered married after cohabiting for a certain amount of time (varies on jurisdiction). Actual divorces seldom happen unless there is a dispute about common property splitting and child custody.
    I'd agree with this but I'd also like to add something to it. Modern day women are the problem with marriage. Here's some facts to back it up...

    http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/...ed-for-failure

    Summary - Lesbian marriages/civil unions end up failing at a much higher rate than gay men. Given a large sample you'd expect failure rates of such relationships to be near equal, but they aren't.

    Also...I'm too lazy to post a link, so google it if you don't believe me. There are a lot of sources to back this up, but here in America women file for divorce between 2/3 and 75% of the time. There is a lot of research and speculation into why this is so, and again it varies by source. If you want to go read some feminist source its because men are a bunch of abusive assholes, if you want my perspective that I've witnessed first hand from practically every divorcing couple I've ever known...the man views a divorce as losing half his ****, the woman views it as walking away with half of the war chest.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    I will give you this though. 50-60 years ago that whole "The woman gets everything" in a divorce settlement situation was a lot worse. Why? Because 50-60 years ago there were a lot more stay-at-home "homemaker" moms than dads. In that situation a woman (or even man) who stayed at home as a homemaker rather than earning a living in the workforce was entitled to alimony. As well the partent that was a homemaker were in 90% of cases often awarded custody of the kids because courts saw the mother that stayed at home with the kids the better parent to care for them. Much to the chagrin of the parent that went out and earned the family income.
    You've got to be ****ing kidding. The courts are still stacked against men in such a ridiculous manner it disgusts me. A massive majority of the time women get custody of the kids, and the men get child support. What happens to the man if he falls upon hard times and falls behind on child support...HE ENDS UP IN JAIL. What happens to the woman if she falls on hard times and can't afford the kids? The state puts her on welfare programs.

    Now to be fair, in my state...they have cut way back on alimony, but child support is more than unfair to the extent that they've made alimony irrelevant anyhow. The woman literally has no accountability for how the money is spent. I know a guy that was paying 800 dollars a month for one kid, and another that got slammed with 1600 a month for three kids. Now my issue...women want equality...what the **** were they paying for those kids? If she was paying an equal amount, which she should because they are half hers as well, how do you spend 1600 a month on one kid? I don't even need that for myself...and that's paying for a mortgage included. Unless the kid plays Rohan and you want to buy him upgrades that amount is ludicrous. Every divorced guy I've ever talked to gets ****ed in this manner, the women gets the better deal with custody and visitation, and they get the bill.

    And then we get into the whole concept that stay at home parents are useless with modern technology. Maybe 4 years tops until the kid is in school...then after that get your ass back to work. Just some examples, 60 or 70 years ago laundry was an all day event...you had to wash each article by hand and hang it to dry. Today you throw it in a machine, push a couple buttons, and come back a half hour later when your tv show is on a commercial. Cooking is a joke as well. Everyone has a fridge/freezer. One trip to the grocery store per week is all the time you need for acquiring food. Its not like back in the day where women shopped several times a week for food because it was difficult to keep food useable as long. Plus meal prep time. A woman my age that can cook from scratch is a rarity...everyone opts for premade **** with minimal prep times these days. Or the clean up time. Load dishwasher, push button...its not really a chore anymore. The early 1900s stay at home wife...full time job. The 2000s stay at home wife, 10 hours a week. Why on earth would I want to support someone to have a leisurely part time gig while we are married just to insure that if we split it makes the divorce all the more painful financially for me as well? Its a lose lose for me. I grew up watching my dad do this for my mom, he'd work 60 hour weeks so she could stay home, and when he got home he'd get to listen to her bitch about what a rough day of laundry she had. He just worked a 12 hour shift...then comes home to her complaining about how walking up and down the basement stairs 4 times and pushing a few buttons to get a couple loads of laundry done was such a hard job. LOL.

    Anyways...bottom line is divorce ****s the man, and the higher earner. If you happen to be both of these, DO NOT GET MARRIED. If you are a man and find a woman who makes a lot more who is willing to marry...you might get a fair deal in a divorce.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    That situation is far less than it was 40-60 years ago. Today it is not possible for one parent to stay at home with the kids unless one of them is making huge amounts of money in their job or is relatively wealthy. These days divcorce settlements entail equally splitting property with consideration on who has the custody of the kids and child support.
    A large part of this is because people today suck with money. They are total failures at budgeting and planning for the future. One example I like to use that applies to my generation is they love to cry about their student loans...yet they all have 400 dollar smart phones and 100 dollar a month data plans. I mean...you are right to an extent...for a variety of reasons beyond the control of the average American peon our standard of living is declining and our middle class is getting crushed, but there are also a lot of couples who can't afford a stay at home parent simply because they make awful financial decisions and can't differentiate between wants and needs, or simply neither of them want to be a stay at home parent, or one demands the other return to work because they realize a stay at home parent these days is worthless once the kids are off to school.
    Last edited by Gank83; 06-28-2015 at 08:04 AM.

  6. #36
    Commoner
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    More marriages = more taxes.

    Married couples are taxed heavier than singles simply because household income comes into play when couples are married and it comes time to calculate write-offs like medical expenses and tax credits. People that are shacked up get to sidestep all that crap.
    Lol...yet another of the reasons why I say if gays want marriage jokes on them. The only benefit to marriage is if one spouse has great health insurance and the other has awful insurance, but after the increased tax rate and potential expense of a divorce in the future you won't even end up coming out ahead.

    If kids are involved and you want a stay at home spouse, its disgusting to say, but you are better off remaining unwed and pretending the mother is a single mother, and living separately on paper...even though you can live together and nobody will ever verify it. This way the government will put the woman on all kinds of assistance programs. You can probably get 40k a year worth of "free" **** from the government this way, where as if you were married you'd get nothing.

    But hey...let's not work on any of these much larger issues that make it easy, and rewarding for scamming the system. Let's not work on issues that are hurting all of us...let's just focus on letting probably the 0.5% of the population that are gays that even want to get married be able to do so. Its pretty much the equivalent of going in to the ER with a gunshot wound and a paper cut, and the doctors slapping each other a high five because they stopped the bleeding from the paper cut.

  7. #37
    This is exactly what I was saying to my friends lol unless you are in the wedding industry dont celebrate. But even then you may have the right to get married but now you have to find an acceptable religious body to marry you (because the "city hall" type of wedding is tacky as ****) and the law cant force those religions to accept gay/lesbian marriages.

    Oh wait we have come up with a new business! Equality Chapels! someone appointed by the state to process marriage licenses (which is what a priest does) will regurgitate the typical wedding nonsense from the movies then make you sign the papers and regurgitate some more wedding nonsense from the movies and collect $2300 for letting all your friends/family sit on some "comfy" wooden benches and watch. Looking for investors pm me nao

    Iceyy~~Certified Rohan Expert
    ROHAN: Defender Avenger ???? Lumir ????? Noir (Ran)
    TERA: BANNED(65 Warrior) ALSOBANNED(65 priest) @DELETED GAME
    Unofficial post count: Whatever it says on the left + 9461

  8. #38
    Commoner
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    196
    Don't kid yourself with the religious aspect of it. Churches are a business, by the end of the decade there will be more churches willing to marry gay couples than not. Gay marriage has been legal in my state since 2008, I already know personally of at least one gay couple that was married in a church, I'm sure plenty more are out there.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Gank83 View Post
    Here's the facts sir.

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005044.html

    If you go back to the early 1900s divorce rates were less than 10%. People married in the 40's and 50's, my grandparents generation, had divorce rates of 16-23% chance of divorce. People married in the late 70s and early 80s, my parents generation, faced divorce rates of 48-50%. So in other words...when you were growing up, and when you were pondering marriage...the divorce rates you witnessed from previous generations was a fraction of what my generation witnessed.
    There's a whole lot of things I can say here so let's start with the following:

    Early 1900s: Married women were little more than indentured servants. Women had no rights, couldn't vote and were just starting to be allowed to enroll in Universities which means most had little more than a middle school education. Did they have much say in their marriages? Oh, no! Most of that divorce rate was from annulments rather than outright divorce. If their husband was screwing the neighbor's wife, they were expected by society to look the other way. A divorce was almost impossible to prosecute for a woman - most often it was the men that were suing for it. I could almost bet that if women had the same rights and relaxed social attitudes then as they do today, you would be seeing much higher divorce rates.

    Late 70s, early 80s : Well, this is MY generation not just your parents. That chart shows divorce rates of 4.4 divorces per 1000 people and up to as high as 5 divorces per 1000 people not 48 - 50%. You read the chart wrong. My parents were married in 1954 and were divorced in 1969. My dad found it preferable to be humping hoes in Thailand than raising kids so my mother wound up raising my self and my 2 siblings. He didn't pay a dime in child support. Was he was totally irresponsible? I weoudl say definitely. But would I try and classify the attitudes of everyone in that way? No, and evidence to that fact was my own wedding in the mid '70s.

    Present day : That same chart is presenting 3.6 people out of 1000 whose marriages are ending in divorce for 2008. If you are gvoingf to point at that chart and say the divorce rate is worse today than it wes 40 years ago, you have it backwards sir.

    The points I am making here is that everybody on this planet is an individual. Trying to quantify individuality is like trying to herd cats. Foe very married couple out there that gets married there are reasons that marriage could thrive or fail. It is up to the individual person and frankly it takes the same work and responsibility today as it did 40 years ago to maintain a working marital relationship. No More, No Less.

    Modern day women are the problem with marriage. Here's some facts to back it up...

    http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/...ed-for-failure

    Summary - Lesbian marriages/civil unions end up failing at a much higher rate than gay men. Given a large sample you'd expect failure rates of such relationships to be near equal, but they aren't.

    Also...I'm too lazy to post a link, so google it if you don't believe me. There are a lot of sources to back this up, but here in America women file for divorce between 2/3 and 75% of the time. There is a lot of research and speculation into why this is so, and again it varies by source. If you want to go read some feminist source its because men are a bunch of abusive assholes, if you want my perspective that I've witnessed first hand from practically every divorcing couple I've ever known...the man views a divorce as losing half his ****, the woman views it as walking away with half of the war chest.
    I think the generalization that women are b!tches could be applied equally by saying men are a$$holes. Both terms relate to people with strong attitudes equally. So who's marriage lasts longer? two b!tches? A b!tch and an a$$hole? or two a$$holes? The problem is not in the marriage between heterosexual or homosexual couples. The problem is the labels. It is the marriage between two individual people that have their own attitudes and personalities. Some things each person feels strongly about, other things each lets slide. The secret to being able to survive a long marriage is to realize that your partners can't read your mind, may have a different views than your own and taking those into account when you make decisions that affect both of you. Being gay or straight has nothing at all to do with that.

    You've got to be ****ing kidding. The courts are still stacked against men in such a ridiculous manner it disgusts me. A massive majority of the time women get custody of the kids, and the men get child support. What happens to the man if he falls upon hard times and falls behind on child support...HE ENDS UP IN JAIL. What happens to the woman if she falls on hard times and can't afford the kids? The state puts her on welfare programs.

    Now to be fair, in my state...they have cut way back on alimony, but child support is more than unfair to the extent that they've made alimony irrelevant anyhow. The woman literally has no accountability for how the money is spent. I know a guy that was paying 800 dollars a month for one kid, and another that got slammed with 1600 a month for three kids. Now my issue...women want equality...what the **** were they paying for those kids? If she was paying an equal amount, which she should because they are half hers as well, how do you spend 1600 a month on one kid? I don't even need that for myself...and that's paying for a mortgage included. Unless the kid plays Rohan and you want to buy him upgrades that amount is ludicrous. Every divorced guy I've ever talked to gets ****ed in this manner, the women gets the better deal with custody and visitation, and they get the bill.

    And then we get into the whole concept that stay at home parents are useless with modern technology. Maybe 4 years tops until the kid is in school...then after that get your ass back to work. Just some examples, 60 or 70 years ago laundry was an all day event...you had to wash each article by hand and hang it to dry. Today you throw it in a machine, push a couple buttons, and come back a half hour later when your tv show is on a commercial. Cooking is a joke as well. Everyone has a fridge/freezer. One trip to the grocery store per week is all the time you need for acquiring food. Its not like back in the day where women shopped several times a week for food because it was difficult to keep food useable as long. Plus meal prep time. A woman my age that can cook from scratch is a rarity...everyone opts for premade **** with minimal prep times these days. Or the clean up time. Load dishwasher, push button...its not really a chore anymore. The early 1900s stay at home wife...full time job. The 2000s stay at home wife, 10 hours a week. Why on earth would I want to support someone to have a leisurely part time gig while we are married just to insure that if we split it makes the divorce all the more painful financially for me as well? Its a lose lose for me. I grew up watching my dad do this for my mom, he'd work 60 hour weeks so she could stay home, and when he got home he'd get to listen to her bitch about what a rough day of laundry she had. He just worked a 12 hour shift...then comes home to her complaining about how walking up and down the basement stairs 4 times and pushing a few buttons to get a couple loads of laundry done was such a hard job. LOL.

    Anyways...bottom line is divorce ****s the man, and the higher earner. If you happen to be both of these, DO NOT GET MARRIED. If you are a man and find a woman who makes a lot more who is willing to marry...you might get a fair deal in a divorce.
    Not sure how to respond to you on that. Not sure what it has to do with gay marriages but meh. You appear to have some pretty jaded attitudes regarding what it takes to raise kids based simply on what you observed in your own family. My own experiences is quite different from yours and that is from actually participating in that marriage and raising my kids to adulthood.

    Do you honestly believe that money is all it requires to raise kids? Is that all it took for your parents to raise you? If that is what you think, I am really glad you were no parent of mine. You brought those kids into the world. If you are not there to provide the non-monetary necessities of raising those kids, you can be that the courts will make sure you are doing your fair share your part with the money side of things - and that includes compensating your wife for doing those non-money related things needed by your kids.

    {same sex marriages (added via edit) }
    This is still in the honeymoon phase. There is gonna be a lot of woohoo! we can get married going on and a rash of marriages will ensue. Once the honeymoon is over though many of these gay couples will realize that marriage really does not provide any benefit to them when there are no kids involved. Marriage really provides no real benefit when there are not kids to provide a family unit.

    On the flip side of this a lot of gay couples want to be parents as well - via adoption (males) or other means (women). Those of you that have watched last season's "Two and a half Men" episodes will see that adoption agencies will not consider you for adoption unless you are married. I do not doubt that a lot of gay marriages are going to be for the purpose of allowing same sex couples to provide a family environment for adopting kids (admirable).
    Last edited by BananaBandit; 06-28-2015 at 12:19 PM.
    There is nothing noble about being superior to others. True nobility is gained by becoming superior to one's former self.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    There's a whole lot of things I can say here so let's start with the following:

    Early 1900s: Married women were little more than indentured servants. Women had no rights, couldn't vote and were just starting to be allowed to enroll in Universities which means most had little more than a middle school education. Did they have much say in their marriages? Oh, no! Most of that divorce rate was from annulments rather than outright divorce. If their husband was screwing the neighbor's wife, they were expected by society to look the other way. A divorce was almost impossible to prosecute for a woman - most often it was the men that were suing for it. I could almost bet that if women had the same rights and relaxed social attitudes then as they do today, you would be seeing much higher divorce rates.

    Late 70s, early 80s : Well, this is MY generation not just your parents. That chart shows divorce rates of 4.4 divorces per 1000 people and up to as high as 5 divorces per 1000 people not 48 - 50%. You read the chart wrong. My parents were married in 1954 and were divorced in 1969. My dad found it preferable to be humping hoes in Thailand than raising kids so my mother wound up raising my self and my 2 siblings. He didn't pay a dime in child support. Was he was totally irresponsible? I weoudl say definitely. But would I try and classify the attitudes of everyone in that way? No, and evidence to that fact was my own wedding in the mid '70s.

    Present day : That same chart is presenting 3.6 people out of 1000 whose marriages are ending in divorce for 2008. If you are gvoingf to point at that chart and say the divorce rate is worse today than it wes 40 years ago, you have it backwards sir.

    The points I am making here is that everybody on this planet is an individual. Trying to quantify individuality is like trying to herd cats. Foe very married couple out there that gets married there are reasons that marriage could thrive or fail. It is up to the individual person and frankly it takes the same work and responsibility today as it did 40 years ago to maintain a working marital relationship. No More, No Less.



    I think the generalization that women are b!tches could be applied equally by saying men are a$$holes. Both terms relate to people with strong attitudes equally. So who's marriage lasts longer? two b!tches? A b!tch and an a$$hole? or two a$$holes? The problem is not in the marriage between heterosexual or homosexual couples. The problem is the labels. It is the marriage between two individual people that have their own attitudes and personalities. Some things each person feels strongly about, other things each lets slide. The secret to being able to survive a long marriage is to realize that your partners can't read your mind, may have a different views than your own and taking those into account when you make decisions that affect both of you. Being gay or straight has nothing at all to do with that.



    Not sure how to respond to you on that. Not sure what it has to do with gay marriages but meh. You appear to have some pretty jaded attitudes regarding what it takes to raise kids based simply on what you observed in your own family. My own experiences is quite different from yours and that is from actually participating in that marriage and raising my kids to adulthood.

    Do you honestly believe that money is all it requires to raise kids? Is that all it took for your parents to raise you? If that is what you think, I am really glad you were no parent of mine. You brought those kids into the world. If you are not there to provide the non-monetary necessities of raising those kids, you can be that the courts will make sure you are doing your fair share your part with the money side of things - and that includes compensating your wife for doing those non-money related things needed by your kids.

    {same sex marriages (added via edit) }
    This is still in the honeymoon phase. There is gonna be a lot of woohoo! we can get married going on and a rash of marriages will ensue. Once the honeymoon is over though many of these gay couples will realize that marriage really does not provide any benefit to them when there are no kids involved. Marriage really provides no real benefit when there are not kids to provide a family unit.

    On the flip side of this a lot of gay couples want to be parents as well - via adoption (males) or other means (women). Those of you that have watched last season's "Two and a half Men" episodes will see that adoption agencies will not consider you for adoption unless you are married. I do not doubt that a lot of gay marriages are going to be for the purpose of allowing same sex couples to provide a family environment for adopting kids (admirable).
    Ill glad to read all, but ill not fight or make an issue when fact exist and you can google it, Time changes, your happy with ur marriage? ok fine, these days marriage break for stupid issues and the couple doesnt want to resolve, if u have 40 years of married spend sometime with ur wife and grandson, I wish my granpa play Rohan with me lol
    "If it bleeds, we can kill it."

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
modify