+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 179
  1. #41
    Marriages have always broken for what appear to be stupid reasons. What makes it any different today than it was 40 years ago? Who defines what a stupid reason is?
    Point is that it is people that get married, not robots. What makes no sense at all to you or me may make perfect sense to them.
    Who are we to judge anybody's reasons for getting divorced is stupid or not? We are not in that positions since every single one of us has made stupid decisions is his or her life.

    You want to see what a stupid decision looks like? Spending upwards of $200+ US playing in any online game. Getting out of a marriage that is not working and causing you hardship is a brainstorm compared to that.
    There is nothing noble about being superior to others. True nobility is gained by becoming superior to one's former self.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Gank83 View Post
    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.
    SOME churches are a business but that does not change the rules that their religion goes by. I know 100% for example that no homosexuals will ever get married in my church (Greek Orthodox Christian) why? simply put a marriage is a sacred ritual and is not built to please the social constructs of <insert generation here>. Same sex marriages, regurgitating song lyrics, a band etc have no place in a marriage as far as my religion goes.


    Also I highly doubt that there will be more churches willing to marry homosexuals in the next decade.

    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

  3. #43
    Colonel xXxAurorAxXx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Dreamland
    Posts
    4,241
    Well there's always celebrants. Who needs a church to get married?


    When you wake up..
    I'll be a story in your head,
    But that's ok.
    We are all stories in the end.

    Just make it a good one eh?
    Because it was, you know.
    It was the best.

    ~ The Doctor.

    MsAbella ~ Priest

  4. #44
    Commoner
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    196
    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.
    And what were the men doing back then? Breaking their backs in the fields, destroying their lungs in the coal mines if they didn't outright die in a cave in before they saw an old enough age for their bad lungs to hurt them, getting massacred in WWI, or a variety of other delightful jobs? Yeah...women had it so bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    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.
    Let me explain it to you...the percentage of marriages that end in divorce is = marriage rate / divorce rate. So yeah...in 1980, which is around when my parents married, when you had 10.6 marriages per 1000 people and 5.2 divorces per 1000 people...that is a 49% divorce rate.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    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.
    Again, learn how to actually read the chart. Its saying that for every 1000 people there were 6.8 marriages and 3.5 divorces. 3.5/6.8 means the divorce rate was 51%.

    Also...now that you actually know how to read the chart, take a look at the marriage rate over time. Notice the drastic drop in marriage rate over the last decade. Notice how it coincides with a generation who grew up watching the last 30 years worth of marriages hover around a 40-50% divorce rate. Now also...since you were around back then, notice the sharp increase in divorce rates in the 70s. Wtf happened then? Couldn't be no fault divorce, could it?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    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'll agree with this. However what I'm saying is that when I view marriage, I'm also viewing it from a statistical stand point. I have too much money on the line to blindly waltz into a marriage when the reality of the situation is that there is a 50% chance of it failing and screwing me over big time. As previously mentioned with the no fault divorce...the wife could literally just wake up one day and say I'm done here, I've been having an affair for the last 3 years, I'm taking half of everything and leaving. I could literally do no wrong and still get ****ed a ton of money. I've seen this happen to too many people...they go work overtime to support the family and she gets bored and ****s around behind their back, then walks away with the majority of the marital assets.

    I'm not saying women cause all divorces, or that if I were to marry it would definitely end in a divorce, but given the statistics of it, its simply in my best interest to not sign a contract with the state allowing them to split up my assets as they see fit in the event of a break up.

    Plus...when you were married, how old were you, like 22? You probably didn't have any assets and were just getting settled in a career. I'm 31...I have a six figure net worth, I'm settled in a career where I'm making a six figure salary, and I've already paid for all the education I'll ever need. Not only am I looking at marriage prospects that statistically have a higher chance of failing than when you were considering marriage, but I'm probably putting a lot more on the line the second I sign a marriage contract than you had to worry about when you married. If I got married today, and divorced in a few years with no kids...its would still probably cost me in excess of 100,000. I'd like my biggest purchase over the next decade to be upgrading from a condo to a house, not a divorce.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    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.
    62% of lesbian marriages end in divorce.
    50% of hetero marriages end in divorce.
    38% of gay male marriages end in divorce.

    These numbers just tell me the problem is with modern women. Their marriages fail at greater rates than marriages that don't involve them. I'm not saying these numbers have anything to do with gay or straight marriages...they have to do with women, and when women obviously fail at relationships more than men do, its another statistic that makes marriage not worth it for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    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.
    Oh my bad...please allow me to clarify. If I had children I would love to be as active as possible in their life, and to be the best father I could. Now my subsequent rant about biased laws...sometimes the judges make this impossible. All the ex has to do is make some false claim that I hit her and I immediately get slapped with a restraining order which right off the bat puts crippling limits on access to my own children. After the divorce is finalized...what happens an overwhelming majority of the time? The woman gets primary custody. Even if she doesn't turn into a raging bitch and slap a restraining order on me with some bull**** claim, the mother has to literally be a toothless crack whore who doesn't even show up in court, or flat out tell the judge she doesn't want the kids, in order for her not to get primary custody. So post divorce...what do I end up with for custody rights? Every other weekend and a couple weeks in the summer? How the **** is that fair? I get to pay the majority of the financial expenses while the ex gets the privilege of being able to spend way more time with them than I do?

    If the courts were actually fair this **** would never happen. Both parents would be responsible for 50% of child related expenses, and both parents would get to have the kids 50% of the time unless one parent was deemed unfit, or the parents themselves came up with another arrangement. You probably view the cost sharing differently than I do, but you grew up in an era when stay at home moms were the norm, so yeah, women deserved to have a fair shake back then considering most of them had no education or job skills. However...look at society today...more women are graduating college then men...if they want equality, I say give it to them. We still allow certain laws to be biased towards them because these laws have not been updated in decades even though society has changed so drastically during that time period.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    {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.
    Marriage provides no benefit when kids are involved, it provides penalties. You are better off to be a single mom on paper and live with your boyfriend. Sit around and hop on every welfare program you can and you can still live with your boyfriend. Just have him live with his parents or a friend on paper. Nobody verifies this ****. Why do you think there are so many "single" welfare moms out there? They all have their live in **** buddies and scam the system. Its wrong, and it sickens me, and it shouldn't be this way, but it is...which is why I've been saying all the effort they put into gay marriage was a waste of time when hetero marriage in its current form is a pointless, broken institution that actually punishes people for doing things the "right" way vs just being a scum bag.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    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).
    Well I guess this is one good thing that came out of it. I won't argue this. I know for a fact if I was getting shuffled around in the foster care system I'd be delighted to be taken into any stable home, even if I happened to have 2 moms or 2 dads. Even if on some level I personally feel same sex parenting is kind of weird, I can't deny that for a lot of kids its better than the alternative.
    Last edited by Gank83; 06-28-2015 at 01:55 PM.

  5. #45
    Commoner
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by sunnyangel View Post
    SOME churches are a business but that does not change the rules that their religion goes by. I know 100% for example that no homosexuals will ever get married in my church (Greek Orthodox Christian) why? simply put a marriage is a sacred ritual and is not built to please the social constructs of <insert generation here>. Same sex marriages, regurgitating song lyrics, a band etc have no place in a marriage as far as my religion goes.


    Also I highly doubt that there will be more churches willing to marry homosexuals in the next decade.
    You have to remember...churches are on a spectrum. On one end you have your extreme fundamentalists, and on the other end there are churches that are basically social/charity clubs with some sort of minister/pastor/priest that oversees it. Look how churches have evolved over time on issues like birth control. Sure the fundamentalist churches and orthodox churches haven't budged, but most churches have evolved with social issues as people's views on them have shifted over time, otherwise they just lose their member to churches who do modernize. Let's face it...if you are actively using birth control and having premarital sex, things that most modern women do, are you going to go sit in a church that preaches no sex til marriage and sex is only for procreation? Nope...and most churches have also softened their stances on these issues. Gay marriage will be no different. Some churches will keep a firm position on the issue, others will modernize. The gay couple I know that got married in town got married in a christian church by a gay minister lol.

  6. #46
    I will just leave this thread by saying marriages are so dead that this does not matter at all. And people in the wedding industry would have liked it if homosexual marriage licenses were given out a decade ago when they had more customers.

    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

  7. #47
    Oh my how to answer all this...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gank83 View Post
    And what were the men doing back then? Breaking their backs in the fields, destroying their lungs in the coal mines if they didn't outright die in a cave in before they saw an old enough age for their bad lungs to hurt them, getting massacred in WWI, or a variety of other delightful jobs? Yeah...women had it so bad.
    lol What makes you think men were the only ones doing physical labor 12 hrs/day? You think women weren't out in those same fields breaking their backs? Coal mines wasn't the only industry of the early 1900s. While those soldiers were out there in the WWI trenches, most of the women were sweating 12 hr days making the bombs, guns and grenades that the guys in those trenches were using to massacre each other. Every industry was staffed by women who were being paid less than half of what a male worker was getting. So yea, women had it so bad. I got this from MY grandmother who actually lived during that era.


    Let me explain it to you...the percentage of marriages that end in divorce is = marriage rate / divorce rate. So yeah...in 1980, which is around when my parents married, when you had 10.6 marriages per 1000 people and 5.2 divorces per 1000 people...that is a 49% divorce rate.

    Again, learn how to actually read the chart. Its saying that for every 1000 people there were 6.8 marriages and 3.5 divorces. 3.5/6.8 means the divorce rate was 51%.

    Also...now that you actually know how to read the chart, take a look at the marriage rate over time. Notice the drastic drop in marriage rate over the last decade. Notice how it coincides with a generation who grew up watching the last 30 years worth of marriages hover around a 40-50% divorce rate. Now also...since you were around back then, notice the sharp increase in divorce rates in the 70s. Wtf happened then? Couldn't be no fault divorce, could it?
    try again. you are making the assumption that the people being married in a particular year are being divorced in that same year. That chart does not say anything like that. It does however relate the number of marriages per 1000 people year against divorces across 1000 people that same year. It does not say anything like 50% of the people getting married that year are getting divorced. it only says (for simplicity there is a 2 to 1 relationship between divorces and marriages. Also look closely. the marriage stat is takenm out of a different population opf people that the divorce stat is. They are not comparing against the same population base and there is no guarantee the demographuyics of that target base is the same.

    I'll agree with this. However what I'm saying is that when I view marriage, I'm also viewing it from a statistical stand point. I have too much money on the line to blindly waltz into a marriage when the reality of the situation is that there is a 50% chance of it failing and screwing me over big time. As previously mentioned with the no fault divorce...the wife could literally just wake up one day and say I'm done here, I've been having an affair for the last 3 years, I'm taking half of everything and leaving. I could literally do no wrong and still get ****ed a ton of money. I've seen this happen to too many people...they go work overtime to support the family and she gets bored and ****s around behind their back, then walks away with the majority of the marital assets.

    I'm not saying women cause all divorces, or that if I were to marry it would definitely end in a divorce, but given the statistics of it, its simply in my best interest to not sign a contract with the state allowing them to split up my assets as they see fit in the event of a break up.

    Plus...when you were married, how old were you, like 22? You probably didn't have any assets and were just getting settled in a career. I'm 31...I have a six figure net worth, I'm settled in a career where I'm making a six figure salary, and I've already paid for all the education I'll ever need. Not only am I looking at marriage prospects that statistically have a higher chance of failing than when you were considering marriage, but I'm probably putting a lot more on the line the second I sign a marriage contract than you had to worry about when you married. If I got married today, and divorced in a few years with no kids...its would still probably cost me in excess of 100,000. I'd like my biggest purchase over the next decade to be upgrading from a condo to a house, not a divorce.
    Actually I was 20 when I got married. And my current nw is in the 7 figure range. that net worth was accumulated over my entire married period so it is all marital assets and we are no longer supporting a child. So if my wife wanted to call it quits, she would be entitled to a tidy sum indeed. She has earned every penny coming to her for putting up with me over 4 decades.

    Notice those 2 highlighted words there. Those mean the assets accumulated during our marriage. Uf you bought a house today and got married next month, 6that house is yours since you are entering the marriage with that in out possession. If you split up after 3 years, your wife and you split the equity earned on that house over 3 years even if she does not work a day during that 3 years. She supported your efforts to accumulate that wealth and she is entitled to a 50% split of it. She also gets 50% of the money you save during that 3 years. Money you put in the bank during that 3 years is also 50% hers. No pre-nup will keep her hands off that. You win a lottery, she gets half. You get a big raise and bank it? 50% is yours. Now if you insist she stays at home, she can also sue you for that alimony. If she gets a job she doesn't get that unless it is disallowed in a pre-nup. It has always been that way.

    so, you are paranoid that some woman will take you for everything you own, get a pre-nup. simple.

    Oh and one other thing. I don't know what the time period is where you live - for us it is something like 2 years - but if you are living with someone for that long and you split up, they will gain all the rights I just told you about because that 'marital assets' bit still applies.

    All of this works both ways though. If you get yourself a sugar mama who is making way more than you do, you get half of that 'marital' treasure chest as well.

    62% of lesbian marriages end in divorce.
    50% of hetero marriages end in divorce.
    38% of gay male marriages end in divorce.

    These numbers just tell me the problem is with modern women. Their marriages fail at greater rates than marriages that don't involve them. I'm not saying these numbers have anything to do with gay or straight marriages...they have to do with women, and when women obviously fail at relationships more than men do, its another statistic that makes marriage not worth it for me.
    not sure what hole you pulled that bit of shh....ugar out of and how credible the source is (Westboro South Baptist Church by any chance?) and what time period it is taken over.

    Oh my bad...please allow me to clarify. If I had children I would love to be as active as possible in their life, and to be the best father I could. Now my subsequent rant about biased laws...sometimes the judges make this impossible. All the ex has to do is make some false claim that I hit her and I immediately get slapped with a restraining order which right off the bat puts crippling limits on access to my own children. After the divorce is finalized...what happens an overwhelming majority of the time? The woman gets primary custody. Even if she doesn't turn into a raging bitch and slap a restraining order on me with some bull**** claim, the mother has to literally be a toothless crack whore who doesn't even show up in court, or flat out tell the judge she doesn't want the kids, in order for her not to get primary custody. So post divorce...what do I end up with for custody rights? Every other weekend and a couple weeks in the summer? How the **** is that fair? I get to pay the majority of the financial expenses while the ex gets the privilege of being able to spend way more time with them than I do?

    If the courts were actually fair this **** would never happen. Both parents would be responsible for 50% of child related expenses, and both parents would get to have the kids 50% of the time unless one parent was deemed unfit, or the parents themselves came up with another arrangement. You probably view the cost sharing differently than I do, but you grew up in an era when stay at home moms were the norm, so yeah, women deserved to have a fair shake back then considering most of them had no education or job skills. However...look at society today...more women are graduating college then men...if they want equality, I say give it to them. We still allow certain laws to be biased towards them because these laws have not been updated in decades even though society has changed so drastically during that time period.

    Marriage provides no benefit when kids are involved, it provides penalties. You are better off to be a single mom on paper and live with your boyfriend. Sit around and hop on every welfare program you can and you can still live with your boyfriend. Just have him live with his parents or a friend on paper. Nobody verifies this ****. Why do you think there are so many "single" welfare moms out there? They all have their live in **** buddies and scam the system. Its wrong, and it sickens me, and it shouldn't be this way, but it is...which is why I've been saying all the effort they put into gay marriage was a waste of time when hetero marriage in its current form is a pointless, broken institution that actually punishes people for doing things the "right" way vs just being a scum bag.
    Perhaps the court system is broken where you live. A parent always has the right to sue for custody if it can be proven the custodial parent is mistreating the children. Likewise you would have to prove you would be a better role model and parent. The reason women win the custody in a lot of cases is because the father could not be bothered to prove they would be a better parent to raise the kids. In short they don't actually get out there and fight for their right to raise their kids so the women get the custody uncontested. You bring the right evidence into a courtroom showing you are a better parent than your wife to the kids, you WILL get custody and the wife WILL have to pay support. A lot of fathers don't even try - they just sign the papers and don't bother contesting because they have the same defeatist attitude you have. It is the same attitude my own father had. He didn't even show up in court. He just signed off the divorce papers and walked away. I haven't spoken to him in almost 50 years.

    So you wonder why women are getting all the custody awards? Because their ex husbands are handing it to them!

    I do agree with you in one aspect. Marriage is pretty much pointless unless there are kids involved. Even then is is only for the clear family image or carrying on the father's family name that a marriage provides. If two people care enough about each other to want to spend their lives together, they really don't need a legal document to do that. After time the legal system will treat them as married anyway especially if it comes time to to go separate ways. Marital asserts and child support are applicable for Married as well as shacked-up people. About the only thing that you can get away from without being married is taxes and alimony.
    Last edited by BananaBandit; 06-28-2015 at 05:05 PM.
    There is nothing noble about being superior to others. True nobility is gained by becoming superior to one's former self.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    Marriages have always broken for what appear to be stupid reasons. What makes it any different today than it was 40 years ago? Who defines what a stupid reason is?
    Point is that it is people that get married, not robots. What makes no sense at all to you or me may make perfect sense to them.
    Who are we to judge anybody's reasons for getting divorced is stupid or not? We are not in that positions since every single one of us has made stupid decisions is his or her life.

    You want to see what a stupid decision looks like? Spending upwards of $200+ US playing in any online game. Getting out of a marriage that is not working and causing you hardship is a brainstorm compared to that.
    is relative about spending money on any online game, u can spend 200 or more on rohan while i can spend 400 on a ps4 or xbox 1, is the same, exept...... console are free dramas or minimum drama compared to rohan hahahahaha anyhow if i have my wife or family I need to know what my privileges are, game, family giving quality time, is all relative.... :P
    "If it bleeds, we can kill it."

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by neuropsych View Post
    is relative about spending money on any online game, u can spend 200 or more on rohan while i can spend 400 on a ps4 or xbox 1, is the same, exept...... console are free dramas or minimum drama compared to rohan hahahahaha anyhow if i have my wife or family I need to know what my privileges are, game, family giving quality time, is all relative.... :P
    Ah the difference there is you can buy the xbone and ps4 and still play something other than Rohan! You actually get something to show for all that money! You can even get freebie games for them. What do you really get for free in Rohan? Drama!
    There is nothing noble about being superior to others. True nobility is gained by becoming superior to one's former self.

  10. #50
    Commoner
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    lol What makes you think men were the only ones doing physical labor 12 hrs/day? You think women weren't out in those same fields breaking their backs? Coal mines wasn't the only industry of the early 1900s. While those soldiers were out there in the WWI trenches, most of the women were sweating 12 hr days making the bombs, guns and grenades that the guys in those trenches were using to massacre each other. Every industry was staffed by women who were being paid less than half of what a male worker was getting. So yea, women had it so bad. I got this from MY grandmother who actually lived during that era.
    You know whats worse than working in a munitions factory 12 hours a day? Living in the trenches 24 hours a day while getting mustard gas dumped on you and shot at by machine gun fire, knowing that when the whistle blew you were charging into almost certain death. My point was feminists have made it out like prior generations of women were slaves. Men weren't exactly hanging out at the golf course while their wife did it all back then. If I had my choice I'd rather do 12 hours in a munitions factory than be on the front lines in WW1. I had the privilege of knowing one set of my great grandparents quite well. They both busted their asses, and they both loved and respected each other as they were truly a team. My grandparents that I grew up near and was very close too, it was the same with them. Neither one of those women ever felt repressed in any way, and their husbands treated them with the respect and dignity they deserved. When I look at my parents however...that changed. Feminism taught women to **** on men...I grew up witnessing my mom blatantly disrespect my dad. He'd work 10 hour days sometimes for weeks straight without a day off, then come home and have to listen to my mom bitch about how hard she worked doing 2 loads of laundry and how he was an asshole because of some bull**** reason. Lol...poor lady, had to walk up and down the basement stairs a few times and push a few buttons...thats so much worse then working multiple 70 hour weeks in a row.

    My point is...times have changed, and society has changed. How many single mothers who popped out kids out of wedlock did you know when you were 20-30? How many couples did you know that were shacking up? Those things were not the norm 40 years ago, they are now. What you have seen growing up, and how you and your wife were raised is much different than what marriage age folks today have seen growing up and what we were taught by society. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate your views, and I see where you are coming from, its just that society has changed so much over the last 40 years that at this point you are trying to compare apples to oranges. I didn't write the social rules of society, I think they suck, I wish I was born when you were, but since people today are obviously living by a different set of rules then when you were growing up, its simply in my best interest to adapt.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    try again. you are making the assumption that the people being married in a particular year are being divorced in that same year. That chart does not say anything like that. It does however relate the number of marriages per 1000 people year against divorces across 1000 people that same year. It does not say anything like 50% of the people getting married that year are getting divorced. it only says (for simplicity there is a 2 to 1 relationship between divorces and marriages. Also look closely. the marriage stat is takenm out of a different population opf people that the divorce stat is. They are not comparing against the same population base and there is no guarantee the demographuyics of that target base is the same.
    The marriage/divorce rates on that chart are all per 1000 people. A marriage rate of 9.0 means there was 9 weddings per every 1000 people...or 18 people out of every 1000 married that year. Right at the top of the column, notice how both the divorce rate and the marriage rate have a 2 next to it? Now scroll down to the bottom of the chart...the second footnote reads per 1,000 population. Both of those rate columns are based off of 1000 The columns that read number, that is how many marriages and divorces took place that year. If you divide the divorce rate by the marriage rate, or the raw number of divorces by the raw number of marriages you will get pretty much the same number...it will just be off a fraction of a % due to them rounding the rate off to give you a simple number to look at rather than a long decimal point or a fraction.

    The reason for calculating rate is so you can track trends to see how many people are marrying and divorcing while adjusting for change in population, otherwise researchers would have come to the conclusion that marriage was more popular in 2009 than in 1900 because there were almost 3x as many weddings, even though the population grew by 4x during that same time period.

    Does the rate have anything to do with people marrying and divorcing in the same year? No. Its just like when the FBI tracks murder rates...they track the rate per 100,000 I believe, so that they can track trends without just seeing the number grow as population grows.

    If you still can't figure out what that chart is showing you, crunch these numbers out in a calculator and be marveled...this is using the stats from 1900...

    9.3 weddings / 1000 people x 76,212,168(total population in 1900) = 708,773 weddings, which the chart had listed as 709,000...obviously off a tiny bit due to rounding like I mentioned earlier.

    See how that all works out now?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    Actually I was 20 when I got married. And my current nw is in the 7 figure range. that net worth was accumulated over my entire married period so it is all marital assets and we are no longer supporting a child. So if my wife wanted to call it quits, she would be entitled to a tidy sum indeed. She has earned every penny coming to her for putting up with me over 4 decades.

    Notice those 2 highlighted words there. Those mean the assets accumulated during our marriage. Uf you bought a house today and got married next month, 6that house is yours since you are entering the marriage with that in out possession. If you split up after 3 years, your wife and you split the equity earned on that house over 3 years even if she does not work a day during that 3 years. She supported your efforts to accumulate that wealth and she is entitled to a 50% split of it. She also gets 50% of the money you save during that 3 years. Money you put in the bank during that 3 years is also 50% hers. No pre-nup will keep her hands off that. You win a lottery, she gets half. You get a big raise and bank it? 50% is yours. Now if you insist she stays at home, she can also sue you for that alimony. If she gets a job she doesn't get that unless it is disallowed in a pre-nup. It has always been that way.

    so, you are paranoid that some woman will take you for everything you own, get a pre-nup. simple.

    Oh and one other thing. I don't know what the time period is where you live - for us it is something like 2 years - but if you are living with someone for that long and you split up, they will gain all the rights I just told you about because that 'marital assets' bit still applies.

    All of this works both ways though. If you get yourself a sugar mama who is making way more than you do, you get half of that 'marital' treasure chest as well.
    Well...what was your net worth at 20? Next to nothing? That's what mine was at 20. I'd have felt the same way about splitting up marital assets as you if I were to have been married when I was still a broke college student and everything we earned we earned while together. However...I'll just use my last ex as an example. She had 70,000 in student loans, a car loan, and I'm assuming some credit card debt as well...probably 80-90,000 worth of debt, and she was making 35k a year. Meanwhile...I'm making 3x as much with no debt, and have appreciating assets. If I were to marry her for a few years and we split...I'd be responsible for half her debt, and even if she couldn't touch assets I already had before marriage, I'd still basically have to split the difference in our incomes with her and any growth on my investments and equity that I'd have gained without her would be considered a marital asset. She did nothing to help me get into my career, and she did nothing to help investments I made prior to her grow, and I did nothing to help her accumulate her debt, yet I'd be getting ****ed over on all of those things. Its easy for you to preach about marital assets, because during the time you were getting established in your career, and getting established financially, your wife was there helping you...if you had done those things while you were single, which a lot of my generation is doing, you would probably feel differently about it than you do. I mean...who is the greedy one in this situation? Me for not wanting to put a disproportionate amount of assets on the line, or someone who wouldn't want to pursue a relationship with me unless I put a disproportionate amount of assets on the line? Seems to me like the one who is saying no pay, no play is the one with the problem.

    I thought about the prenup thing...did a little research into it, and from what I found out they really don't guarantee anything. A judge could just rip it in half and toss it if he thinks its unfair. Plus it still doesn't fix the original issue that marriage is pointless. Why do I want to pay for a prenup, and pay for a pointless wedding, just to run the risk of having to pay for a divorce, where even if I had a prenup and it held up in court it would still cost thousands of dollars for lawyers and court fees. It seemed like an awful lot of bull**** when I could just say ya know what...I'm not getting married. If I make more I'm the one running the risk, if we make the same there just isn't any benefit to it for either of us, but the sugar mama thing? Hell yeah I'd marry some woman who if we ever broke up I'd be walking away with a fat payday. Why do you think I don't want to get married...it doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to figure out why broke women with crappy jobs are the most desperate to wed these days.

    As far as the living together thing...that is called common law marriage here. My state doesn't recognize it. I can live with someone for 10 years and if we split up the only thing we'd have to fight over would be any assets that had both of our names legally assigned to it...like if we bought a house together.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    not sure what hole you pulled that bit of shh....ugar out of and how credible the source is (Westboro South Baptist Church by any chance?) and what time period it is taken over.
    http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/...ed-for-failure

    I linked it earlier. If you read the article you can see those were statistics from the UK office of national statistics. I've seen statistics for America as well and lesbian to gay male relationships were divorced at almost a 2 to 1 ratio. Google it if you don't believe me.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaBandit View Post
    Perhaps the court system is broken where you live. A parent always has the right to sue for custody if it can be proven the custodial parent is mistreating the children. Likewise you would have to prove you would be a better role model and parent. The reason women win the custody in a lot of cases is because the father could not be bothered to prove they would be a better parent to raise the kids. In short they don't actually get out there and fight for their right to raise their kids so the women get the custody uncontested. You bring the right evidence into a courtroom showing you are a better parent than your wife to the kids, you WILL get custody and the wife WILL have to pay support. A lot of fathers don't even try - they just sign the papers and don't bother contesting because they have the same defeatist attitude you have. It is the same attitude my own father had. He didn't even show up in court. He just signed off the divorce papers and walked away. I haven't spoken to him in almost 50 years.

    So you wonder why women are getting all the custody awards? Because their ex husbands are handing it to them!
    If you have a father and a mother both show up in court, and both are decent people, the courts will favor the mother every time. That is where the bias lies. I have known plenty of men who are hard working, good men who love their kids, who end up miserable post divorce because they get some ****ty deal where they get to have their kids every other weekend and two weeks in the summer...and if they want anything beyond that its literally impossible if the wife wants to be a bitch, as the courts have her back more so than his. That's not every case...but decent men like this should never get ****ed over with a raw deal like that...they literally get their kids like 10% of the time while paying 80% of the expenses for them. That is sickening.

    I've seen cases where the dads were deadbeats that didn't care that the moms got custody. I've seen cases where the moms were deadbeats and the dads got custody. I've seen cases where both parents were pieces of **** and grandparents got custody. All those outcomes are fair. The ones that disgust me are when the woman wants to be a bitch, and isn't an unfit mother in the eyes of the court as really shes not a bad mother, just a bitch out to **** her ex who got a lawyer who is telling her how to play the game because she is paying him good money to do that, but the court hands her parental preference because she has a vagina and the dad gets a **** deal...and this happens A LOT.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 ... 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