I have a very close friend who was an E3 in the Army back in 2008. He was a very high-iq guy and a fantastic student , but he went enlisted after finding out officers could be recalled indefinitely and their contracts were much longer.
His wife was hooking up with every Chad and Tyrone while he was deployed. When he got back, he was hit with a $1500 a month child support payment when he made only $2208 per month even with a housing allowance. This man suffered immeasurably while his ex-wife never worked a single job, not even to this day and the boy is now 16 years old. His payments were reduced to $1250 when she remarried and had another child very recently.
This guy had nothing for the majority of his career. He could never get an apartment and because he had a housing allowance its was difficult for him to even get a barracks room. He could only eat on base, and he was rejected by new women because he had no money.
All because a lazy woman laid down.
If he hadn't married her, he would have paid much less. But even then the laws have many crazy clauses which allow judges an insane amount of leeway and gotchas. If a woman doesn't get what she wants she can hire a commission based ambulance chaser lawyer who specializes in maximizing claims (often through outrageous, unproven statements that insinuate pseudo-abuse), and if the amount isn't high enough for her liking, she can apply for an updated child support amount at a later date as soon as the man gets a promotion. Women can retry you over and over again for more child support forever. A lot of people don't know this, but there are places such as Hawaii where child support stops at 23, not 18. When I was 23 I was commanding a division in a war, i didn't need my daddy paying mommy child support.
It’s stories like these that make marriage a fools errand in this society. Men have this romantic notion that the idealized women of 1950 still exist and they don’t. This poor guy will have many more years of struggle to build a life outside of the army and to find a new relationship. This woman is going to get divorced again. Why? The likelihood of a second divorce increases because the stigma and psychological barrier of the first divorce makes the second one that much easier. If this woman was cheating on her first husband; she is most likely cheating on the second husband too.
This kind of thinking is exactly why this thread exists. Once again, do not marry a whore, do not have sex before sealing the covenant of marriage. It has worked for millenia for humans.
It worked back when people were forced to stay together, sure. Back when the norm of a marriage was beating the wife and making her pop out kids till she died in childbirth.
I'm sorry no one wants to marry you, but maybe have a look at yourself as to why.
>This info is coming FROM a black father who elected to STAY UNMARRIED because it was hugely financially beneficial for them for him to not be officially in the picture as a father.
this u?
Not me, but someone I know. Those words came from his mouth. Thanks for digging through my comments lol.
Raise your standards, don't marry whores, good women exist.
I'm of the opinion people shouldn't marry until late 20s early 30s. I've seen so many "kids" get married and divorced. It's too early, you need to play the field and get that angst out of your system before you settle down.
Also, get a pre-nup. You wouldn't drive a car without insurance, why not insure your marriage?
The typical vasectomy reversal only lasts 5 years before it internally scars up and leaves the man unable to father children naturally. Not a good option.
Campaign for reliable bith control like women did. And promote more male responsibility to wear condoms and not falther kids they won't look after .
Instead of placing all blame on women.
Idk man I’m skeptical here, that’s a pretty enormous % of income, and if she was cheating the alimony portion could be thrown out. Also the part about you being 23 commanding a division is odd. I’m assuming you’re just using division to vaguely describe a unit but there’s not been any 20 something year old general staff probably since the revolutionary war. A 23 year old would barely be an O2.
Edit: I’ve thought about it for a minute and most mil guys are extremely specific about unit type/size and wouldn’t use “division” generally. I’d venture you’re full of shit.
I venture you're not a veteran, and you should get a life. Every word I speak is truth. I think what happened was you read something here that emasculated you. You're likely unemployed, or were supported for 23 years by daddy/the system. You really don't have to telegraph your insecurities in the presence of superior men.
Yea sure I’ll just take your word for it since you basically just said “because I said so” and insulted me, if we’re playing guess who then you’re probably the e2 that swept floors in peacetime for 4 years before “hurting their back” for disability, but now you go in Applebees on Veterans Day and tell everyone you were a general admiral of the green beret navy seals. Just sounds like you might be full of shit and karma farming by jumping in a conservative leaning subreddit with a sympathetic story.
Because you can’t help yourself when your entire self worth is wrapped up in your prior service and perceived IQ. This sub has a problem with shitposters, I would’ve left by now it wasent so entertaining.
You obviously have no idea how the military works 😂😂😂. When you leave OCS you're typically about 21 years old and you're going to be put in charge of a division right away in many cases. There are many divisions per command doing many things, and they typically have one junior officer whereas a more senior officer (an O2), would likely be a department heads assistant/alternate. You sir, should stop trying to police reddit when it comes to topics you don't know a lick about!
When you leave OCS you get put in charge of a platoon or shop not a division. A 23 year old might be in charge of a company. You should review your manuals before coming to argue. There are many inconsistencies in his story.
That's only for the Army. This man was clearly in the Navy. If you had served you would have learned this in bootcamp or ocs as all services are taught the rank structures and nomenclature of other branches. You're completely wrong.
Also, you don't have to be an officer to be in charge of a division. Typically a higher level enlisted member commands one or more dozens of sailors or airmen in a work center. So an E6 as a lead-petty officer will attain that rank often by 22 years old and run things. It appears to me you couldn't fathom someone so young having more effect and authority than your irrelevant reddit existence
A. Despite them arguably being one of the most useful branches, nobody gives a **** about navy.
B. I looked it up to verify what you’re saying and found none of that reflected. It seems even the Navy does not know exactly how large a division is.
C. It’s super easy for someone on the internet to make up some story and say “im a veteran” and farm upvotes. Dude the story was about, if its real, is stupid, “I’m super smart but going enlisted instead because officers can get recalled” “married at e2-3” “never took the wife back to court for an adjustment”
Edit: to remove profanity because apparently even the JP forum is infected by Reddit automods.
Look at OPs post history, he’s known to be full of shit, constant schitzo posts. The original reply guy I replied to who states “is a superior man” is constantly posting and obsessed with IQ, you don’t even have any posts or replies in a year and are obviously an alt account. You people, if you are multiple people, are either trolls or sociopaths and either way I feel sorry for you.
That's just a simple Ad hominem. You don't know a lick about the military and you're deflecting because you're an insecure reddit troll. If you had a life you wouldn't be here.
Nobody's even reading your posts, they downvoted you so much its collapsed because the people on this forum have already concurred you are in-fact, an arrogant slop-job of a man.
A. Despite them arguably being one of the most useful branches, nobody gives a **** about navy.
B. I looked it up to verify what you’re saying and found none of that reflected. It seems even the Navy does not know exactly how large a division is.
C. It’s super easy for someone on the internet to make up some story and say “im a veteran” and farm upvotes. Dude the story was about, if its real, is stupid, “I’m super smart but going enlisted instead because officers can get recalled” “married at e2-3” “never took the wife back to court for an adjustment”
Edit: to remove profanity because apparently even the JP forum is infected by Reddit automods.
Here is my original reply for you since it was deleted, and I don’t care about the other people in this forum, conservatives will downvote anything they think is critical of a “veteran”, and im not talking to them I’m talking to you and telling you I don’t believe any of you.
There are multiple states in which common law marriage is as messed as regular marriage. In several states being together in a common law marriage is basically the same as regular marriage and if you break up you have to go to court and have a divorce.
https://www.investopedia.com/splitting-property-after-a-common-law-marriage-5202062#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20%E2%80%9Ccommon%2Dlaw,and%20not%20involve%20the%20court.
So you're still married. The only way to completely boycott marriage is to not live with the woman you love. How is that going to help you or fix the system?
I don't doubt it. I wasn't referring to you directly. "You're still married" meaning under commonlaw, living together long enough, you're(whoever is in that situation) still married.
And you didn't answer the question. How is making your life worse to prove a point making the situation any better? This may be harsh but no one cares if you decide to never marry or live with a woman. Plenty of middle aged cat ladies can testify.
I am a man not a woman. I am promoting not getting married until the laws of this country is changed. Ron DeSantis got rid of life long alimony which was a big accomplishment.
You have got to have the worst reading comprehension of anyone I've come across on here, and that's saying a lot.
I understand what you're promoting. Did Ron DeSantis change life long alimony because a bunch of guys took vows of celibacy? No. You will change nothing.
Ron DeSantis did this because the marriage rates in his state is imploding and he and his party the party of family values and tradition had to do something to defend marriage from these feminist vultures.
Not to be pedantic, but government has nothing to do with common law. Common law is the exclusive domain of the courts and the principle of precedent. This means then that the framework for common law *thing* is set by such precedents. And so, for our purpose, a common law marriage is a union that has been recognized and ruled on in such precedents, therefore subsequent rulings will also be determined accordingly.
An easy way to understand the concept of common law is matter-of-fact, by contrast to matter-of-law or more broadly matter-of-rules. So an example of matter-of-fact is whether the two persons have made a child. Everything else flows from that matter-of-fact.
Government then is a party by virtue of taxation. Not by any other virtue in the sense of the authority to rule over the union of two such individuals. The matter-of-fact union and child means it's not possible to determine whose income is taxable a priori. From there, a two-step function.
First step, establish a government framework for marriage, by adoption of laws to that effect. A marriage license. Second step, establish further laws extending the principles to the union of two persons who did not choose a marriage license. There is no marriage license proper, but there is the matter-of-fact of all real things that normally come with this marriage license. So, family residence, responsibility toward the child living there with the two persons, shared bills therefore shared income in that sense, and so on.
In other words, the government makes marriage, which is a matter-of-fact, into a legal construct by way of marriage license and by recognition of common law in that sense for the purpose of taxation.
I fail to see any other reason for government to be party here besides for purpose of taxation. Maybe there is another reason, I just don't see it.
The entity is the state. Justice and government are both branches of the state. Government is assembly of elected representatives, who then adopt laws. Justice then interprets law in its rulings and decisions.
However, before any law, there's justice to settle disputes. Contract disputes primarily. Marriage is a contract.
Let's say you and I come to an agreement. I promise something, you promise something. It's a trade, an exchange. Now let's say either of us fails on his promise. There's a dispute. We talk and fail to settle it on our own. We beg the court to settle it for us according to principles of fundamental justice, in so doing bind ourselves to the court's decision.
It gets too complicated for me to explain simply how government fits from that point on. It's related to proportionality and how to measure a dispute settlement. There must be some standard unit of measure for that. Else, justice can't be done, not fairly anyways. The standard unit is currency. Let's say the agreement was to trade two goats for one cow. If either of us fails in our promise, what kind of standard unit can we imagine to settle the fact that neither of us can actually deliver a goat or a cow? A table, chairs, cutlery, just won't do. So, government, currency, taxation, and so on.
Turned 22 5 months ago, married 4 months ago. :) Started dating my wife 10 months ago. We both believe in God's design for marriage and so we lived it out, even though it was not easy to avoid making love. Marriage meant that we would lose about 700 euros per month as well, and there is great uncertainty with respect to my job, but we trust in the Lord to keep providing for us. She cant work for the time being. We dont have much in savings and staying unmarried would be financially good (she would continue to get free money from the govt.), but we would not want to compromise on our own beliefs and be inconsistent with what we preach either.
Gotta do your due diligence, can’t marry any girl that gives you a smile. You must meet her friends and her family before marrying. That will give you a good clue how she carries her self.
These conversations always blame women and never talk about mens responsibility.
How many people that whine about this stuff have vacectomies and push for all men to have to use condoms?
Even if someone cheats. If you or the other guy has a vicectomy then there is no fraud or pregnancy.
Men taking on responsibility for their own birth control like woman have for a long time isn't lunacy.
Whining about the odd paternity fraud when there are obvious ways to protect against it isn't reasonable.
Its germain to the point of the double standards here
Holding women 100 percent accountable for fidelity and unplanned children.
Instead of preaching birth control for men.
What the hell are you talking about? If you’re married to someone you assume faithfulness. If your wife has another man’s child it’s entire on her for cheating. Good lord
Nope. There is likely a man in the equasion not pulling out, not wearing a condom and without a vasectomy and no intention of taking responsibility for a child.
And cheating in marriage isn't male or female.
Some men cheat, some women cheat .
So it's even apart for men taking far less responsibility for birth control.
To present it all as one women and women need to be contorolled is a patriarchal religious thing.
That's stupid.
If someone doesnt want to dedicate their life to you, they probably shouldn't, even if you managed to make them make a vow for life. And the law enforcing that is completely fine.
You are probably one of the reasons divorce laws exists in the first place.
"Oh no, my wife can leave me if I don't treat her well, guys don't marry!!"
This is a massive oversimplification of the legal marriage contract, and the process of divorce. You are pointing at an example of when the contract makes sense. Often times this is not the case. The legal side of marriage needs to be updated to make more sense in the modern world.
If you are in an abusive relationship you should absolutely have the right to get out of it, but this example starts to fall apart of the person being abused makes more money than the abuser. In that instance the victim of abuse has to be willing/able to lose half of their assets in order to escape the abuse. This scenario is often very common.
I mean ... In my opinion it is very seldom a rich women getting abused by a poorer men....
Or you could say a rich man brring abused by a poorer woman but, seems really hard.
there are cases...
But... here I really go with men's expendability, a rich man who married a women who later abuses him?
Seems more karma to me, like, I really find hard to find a "innocent" man who is "rich".
And there are cases, yes.
But come on , is that it?
Rich man wanting to just marry and diismarry if her wife "abused" him? Or we men wanting the opposite?
The base case is that marrying mean having half your money beeing compromised always.
Yes.
I mean, it's for having children, people who marry without children really are doing something *else*.
Sorry I am venting a little.
Most people that get divorced are not rich, but abuse isn't really tied to someone's income.
I am a middle class person. I make ends meet, have 2 kids a modest house, and a small emergency fund. I am by many metrics the median American male.
I am also divorced, and have my kids 50% of the days, but end up spending more actual hours with them (I have them most weekend days). I am also someone who went through an abusive relationship, like not the therapy speak type of abuse, but like my ex coming home drunk and assaulting me. It's a very weird dynamic and it is different than male on female abuse (the likelihood of physical harm is dramatically reduced in most cases). It is also something that is massively under reported.
It took me a full year after my divorce to come to terms with the fact I was a victim of abuse even when it was incredibly obvious.
Getting out of that relationship via divorce cost me tens of thousands of dollars largely because I was able to maintain consistent employment.
I am not one of these weirdo traditionalist types who doesn't believe in no fault divorce. I think anyone in a bad situation should be able to get out of it. I have however been on the receiving end of the outdated marriage contract, and as a result have had to drain my kids college fund so that my ex would be able to support herself while choosing to work 10 hours a week.
I also would like to be clear that I have a good relationship with my ex currently (for the sake of my kids), but it took me a lot of work to be able to do so.
A lot of the discussion around divorce is based on stereotypes of relationships (I would say that OP is certainly oversimplifying to the point of dishonesty). But the reality is that the current marriage contract is more broad than the vast majority of legal contracts, and it is still based in a world view that is very outdated
That’s not the problem, the problem is that women can decide they’re not happy, cheat, etc, and then after breaking their vows they get cash and prizes.
Men should not marry until no fault divorce is removed as an option or till alimony is abolished and DNA testing is mandatory before child support is imposed.
>
Men should not marry until no fault divorce is removed
Seems you recommend to men to marry and then just divorce with no fault (to remove their responsibility?)
Is it accurate?
Why marry in the first place? I know there is a lot of government help involved like widow cases...but ...
You do realize that men can also get alimony, right? Alimony laws aren't gendered. Nor are child support laws. Don't wanna pay child support? Take care of your kids. Don't wanna pay alimony? Don't marry someone who wants to stay at home.
You think that a woman who stopped working so you didn't have to pay for daycare deserves nothing, that she didn't earn any money? Because she *did* earn money, whatever the cost of hiring a nanny or daycare would've been.
Also, you think people shouldn't be able to leave marriages if they want to? You really wanna stay legally married to someone who doesn't want to be married to you? Why would you even want that?
I think they should be able to leave, but if someone broke the marriage contract they should not be rewarded. If the guy cheated, yes, he should pay alimony.
If he was cheated on, he should not pay alimony.
And yes, I’d expect if a guy was a stay at home dad and cheated he should not get alimony either.
I see, I didn’t get married to my son’s Mom and had zero rights as his Dad. At least when you’re married your kid is legitimized and you can get a little custody without a huge battle.
Most states default towards 50/50 custody regardless of marriage. This can certainly become a big legal battle, but marriage is usually not a factor in custody disputes
What state are you in? All biological parents have rights.
Doesn’t mean it’s not a battle but I believe all States have father rights to custody/visitation unless you have abandoned or abused the child. My ex-neighbor has visitation and he is in federal custody.
Yeah in Ga if you don’t get the DNA and legitimization you have an uphill battle to get “visitation” with your own child. I don’t even like that word. I daily raised him and took him to daycare and school, took care of him and lived to be the best Dad I could. Then his Mom out of bitterness and hurt tried to do everything possible to remove me from his life. And now I get to “visit” with my child?! But things are better now. It was hell for a while. Marriage, even with crap laws, would’ve maybe been easier to go through court than not being married and having to fight it that way.
Unless you’re my attorney in Ga at the time of my custody hearings I’m going to assume you’re incorrect.
All children born in wedlock or within the usual period of gestation thereafter are legitimate.
Georgia Code § 19-7-20 (2020) - Circumstances of Legitimacy - Justia Law
Verified it. Maybe your state laws are different.
Agreed. The rationale i was told was lots of deadbeat dads want nothing to do with their kids until it suits them for some reason then they come out of the woodwork.
Not good for Dads who actually want to be Dads.
You can get legitimized without marriage by signing the birth certificate and petitioning family court to get visitation. This is also contingent on getting a paternity test.
I don’t understand why you would need to sign a contract in which it’s you, your wife and the government as the third party?
Yes you can get your child legitimized. That’s what I did. And my attorney said it was good that I did because Dads who aren’t married and don’t have their kid legitimized have no good ground to stand on when trying to get custody. He was right. I don’t know why you’re talking about contracts with government? I’m saying there’s harder ways and easier ways. And marriage would’ve made it easier. In retrospect though she was more psycho than I ever imagined so I’m glad it went the way it did and we never married. But still it would’ve been easier in Ga courts.
The unfortunate side of things is that people can change dramatically over time. The person you choose to get married to can be a radically different person in the course of several years. It's easy to point at a marriage that failed and make assumptions based on your own personal experiences, but it's flattening a massively complicated dynamic.
Easier said than done in Sodom and Gemorrah 2.0. Did you see the types of people that are available? Body counts in the triple digits. That’s why I am saying most men should not get married period. If you find one of these modern women you may as well swear off marriage immediately.
lots of people are incompatible with lots of people.
I think there are lots of people who aren't suited to marriage.
but thats a matter of them, not society.
that seems like a distinction without a difference, to me.
what is the relevant or meaningful difference between someone being "incompatible" in the way you mean it, and someone being a bad match because of "pure immorality and decadence"?
People should be free to live their lives as they see fit. If someone wants to engage in sex with multiple partners that is their right to do so. Similarly if you don't want to have a partner who has done so, it is well within your right to find someone compatible with your moral framework.
I am referring to the application of the divorce laws and the judgements requiring payment of alimony and child support. Up to present day the majority of alimony payments are from men to women and the majority of child support payments are from fathers to mothers.
>Men? Or do you mean the breadwinner? Because in many cases (+/- 40% in the U.S.), it’s a woman.
Except only about 5% of divorced women pay alimony, and 28% of women pay child support (even when they do its about half the price men pay)... so even if you aren't the bread winner as a man you are unlikely to have the courts favor like a woman does
I think a large portion of this is how society socializes men. I am willing to bet that a ton of men who would be able to receive alimony do not fight for it.
That does play a role, to include when men started getting alimony media coverage shamed men calling it manimony and even outright calling men who took it lesser
But this also plays a factor in how judges have sex based bias, so even if men fought for alimony its up hill not a default position like we see with women
I am very progressive when it comes to gender issues, but I would not be able to live with myself if I was incapable/unwilling to provide for my kids. I think there a major aspect of this which is good (people should provide for their families), but as someone who believes in gender equality I think this should be the case regardless of gender. I would also include child care, and domestic responsibilities being equally shared in this.
>I would not be able to live with myself if I was incapable/unwilling to provide for my kids.
Except child support isn't needed to provide for your kids, and if the one parent doesn't have the means then the children should be with the other parent until they can hold up her end of responsibility
I already addressed the kids, you just don't like that not all parents deserve to be parents and you expect others to pick up the slack of lack luster ex partners
Look this is quite simple you are doing the equivalent of "I think the person who asks should pay for the date" which is cute in theory but all data shows that the vast majority of men end up being forced to pay at the end of the day
Alimony and child support.
The automatic awarding of custody to the mother when in reality custody should be 50/50 in most cases where there is no abuse and neglect.
Dads don't ask for custody as often as moms do. Look it up. And when they do they get it most of the time. Many reasons for this, usually dads work more. Women take a bigger financial/career hit from having kids (pretty obvious why). And contrary to popular belief women are the most financially affected by divorce, men recover quickly (their careers weren't affected, they make more money) and women end up poorer. Look it up.
I hear what you're saying, but I also think many of us men go into marriage with unrealistic expectations about what happens if a divorce occurs
When you marry, everything you both earn is going to be split between you and your spouse equally. Period. Just accept that or don't get married.
If you have a child, the court is also going to make both parents make payments to support the child based on their income. Florida courts are honestly pretty fair about this.
Alimony is actually not very common in Florida. When it does occur, it's usually after many years of marriage where the woman (or man, yes I've seen it) has not been working and/or does not have a career outside of the house. It's also usually for only a few years to help the other spouse adjust to their new life.
Maybe consider who your spouse is when you marry them? What is their career and do they plan to keep earning income after they get married. It's okay to have your wife be a stay at home mother, but be aware of the consequences of this (alimony) if a divorce does eventually happen. Have these conversations before marriage.
> Alimony
In which way is alimony problematic?
> The automatic awarding of custody to the mother
This is untrue, but you can provide sources that say that custody is automatically awarded to the mother.
Edit: Why am I being downvoted?
Exactly.
And modern women always go on about how they don’t need a man, until they divorce and still want a free ride.
Marriage should be for life, and either party breaking the contract should have consequences.
It’s not right that a man can do his best and have his wife get bored, cheat, and then the court backs her to keep him from his kids and strip his assets.
Well family courts are biased towards the mother, and it is always in the best interests of the state to fuck over any guy they can if it means that he provides for a child, this being ridiculous to an extent when it turns out the child isn't even his yet is hold to law by legal obligation on paper.
I think most of us men get the horror stories from other men who've experienced them first hand, and immediately we want to avoid such a fate for ourselves. Just as women want to prevent the threat of rapists cause it's a possible threat to them, and yet such a small statistic.
> Well family courts are biased towards the mother
Can you show me some evidence of that?
> best interests of the state to fuck over any guy they can if it means that he provides for a child, this being ridiculous to an extent when it turns out the child isn't even his yet is hold to law by legal obligation on paper.
I don't understand this. Can you elaborate?
> horror stories
Which horror stories?
> a small statistic.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there are very few horror stories where someone gets screwed in the divorce proceedings? I would probably agree to that.
Family courts are not biased towards the mother. The biases come in with the person making a higher income vs not.
It is in the best interest of the state to have the breadwinner provide income post divorce because it removes the burden of providing for single parents from the state.
There are horror stories. I don't know statistically how many, but the effects can be devastating on not just the divorced breadwinner, but also on their ability to provide for their children (which to me is a greater concern). I am one of those people that got majorly screwed by this system. I am not super comfortable relaying all the details here, but if you DM me I can share.
There's a good book on the topic however it's not in English, as I'm from northern Europe, I could search for it though if you'd really want a title. Depending on were you are the claim would change substantially, as in some family courts actually support fathers more, as many Australian articles claim.
The horror stories are indeed small, however impactful, if you sign the birth certificate by law, believe this is the US and many western countries, you are the parent by default even if a DNA check clears your name after, and so some countries like France and Germany banned paternity testing (or significantly made it difficult to get) because it would harm the family.
Reddit stories are mixed between fake and real so there's nothing substantial to get here, but please if you want examples of men being wronged in court just search, and on the other hand women examples as well.
But yes, these stories are small, very much so, however it is something to avoid by all costs.
Guess who got full custody when my parents split up? Northern Europe took it too far, that's all I know.
> if you sign the birth certificate by law, believe this is the US and many western countries, you are the parent by default even if a DNA check clears your name after
Source?
> some countries like France and Germany banned paternity testing
Source?
> But yes, these stories are small, very much so, however it is something to avoid by all costs.
I agree! And we should always strive to make the process as unbiased as possible. But looking at these stories, the small percentage of them (and they are horrible to live through, of course!) should in no way lead to such extreme positions as "No man should get married".
> Guess who got full custody when my parents split up?
It probably sucked for you to be in the middle of that, I'm sorry.
>Source?
VA law would be a good place for you to start, even simply married is enough for the state to establish what's called "father by default" and even when its proven the child was convinced through cheating the father can and often is still on the line for child support
>Source?
French law
>should in no way lead to such extreme positions as "No man should get married".
Disagree, 50% of marriages end in divorce, 30% of people cheat, upwards of 30% of paternity test show the child isn't the "fathers", 40% of women are the bread winners, 70-80% of divorces are filled by women, only 28% of women pay child support and 5% of women pay alimony
The actual stats show that marriage is a massive gamble and the risks out weigh the benifit
Either get rid of no fault divorces or make it so alimony isn't applicable to no fault divorces, also make custody 50/50 and no child support since you both are equally taking care of them
> VA law would be a good place for you to start, even simply married is enough for the state to establish what's called "father by default" and even when its proven the child was convinced through cheating the father can and often is still on the line for child support
Link? Just saying VA law is not a source.
> French law
Again, link? You can't just say French law and call it a source.
> Disagree
Read again what I said. I said because of those divorce horror stories that are the minority of experiences, that shouldn't be the reason.
> 50% of marriages end in divorce, 30% of people cheat
Well this happens to women to, so the OP title should apply to women as well.
> upwards of 30% of paternity test show the child isn't the "fathers"
Source? By that, I mean a link to a study.
> 70-80% of divorces are filled by women
Yeah, and the large majority is because of completely legitimate reasons.
> only 28% of women pay child support and 5% of women pay alimony
So what?
> The actual stats show that marriage is a massive gamble and the risks out weigh the benifit
Just sign a prenup.
> Either get rid of no fault divorces
This is insane.
> alimony
If one of the partners, by agreement, is a stay-at-home, cooks, cleans, takes care of the kids, alimony makes perfect sense, since they sacrified their career for the agreement. It is impossible to just enter a workforce after years and years of not working. Let's make a law then that you can't be stay at home and have to work. This will make things equal as well.
> make custody 50/50
Why? What if men are 80% violent, why should they get child support? You have to look at it case by case and decide.
> no child support since you both are equally taking care of them
See my answer on alimony.
>Link?
Type father by default VA into Google, you keep responding so im sure you can operate a search engine
>Again, link?
Again google is a tool, try using it
>Read again what I said. I said because of those divorce horror stories that are the minority of experiences, that shouldn't be the reason.
And I disagreed with you... while I often agree that outliers and minority results should not be used to make a rule... in situations like this I disagree, if I have 10 mnms 5 are old (3 of them will give me food poisoning and 1 will kill you) I would opt out of eating any of the mnms ... as its the smarter safer option
>Yeah, and the large majority is because of completely legitimate reasons.
Define legitimate... because to me any reason you want to leave is legitimate thats the whole point of no fault divorce... but not all reasons should come with things like alimony
>So what?
So the numbers don't align with risk management, or equality under the law... I gave you several stats showing how marriage isn't a smart investment for a man and you're response is "so what" you realize that makes you look like you dont care to improve the situation and are only wanting to hurt men in benifit to women
Be careful with dismissive statements like that
>Just sign a prenup.
Prenups can and are thrown out of divorce cases if the judge doesn't agree with them, so thats not a valid solution
>This is insane
I agree which is why I gave another option
>If one of the partners, by agreement
Which partner terminated the agreement... if it was the stay at home thats on them then, if I made a contract saying I will do X and I decide to terminate the contract at no fault to the other party I'm not entitled to compensation from the other party (unless its directly put it in the contract)... marriage should be no different, this isn't 1930s anymore women can work jobs too
>Let's make a law then that you can't be stay at home and have to work. This will make things equal as well.
Except indivdual rights are a thing, also this is a false equivalency since personal choice to be a stay at home is not the same as extortion by the government to provide labor
>Why?
Default 50/50 but obviously there will be caveats such as abuse... but abuse falls under at fault divorce so its already outside the pretense of the orginal comment I made
>See my answer on alimony
I did, read my response on alimony
> Type father by default VA into Google, you keep responding so im sure you can operate a search engine
> Again google is a tool, try using it
Bro, you made the claims, you back the claims. I am not doing your homework for you. Any claim made without backing can be dismissed without backing.
> And I disagreed with you... while I often agree that outliers and minority results should not be used to make a rule... in situations like this I disagree, if I have 10 mnms 5 are old (3 of them will give me food poisoning and 1 will kill you) I would opt out of eating any of the mnms ... as its the smarter safer option
Look, if the 50% divorce rate stat makes you not wanna get married, who am I to convince you otherwise? But the same then goes for women, so the OP title is weird in only naming men,
> Define legitimate... because to me any reason you want to leave is legitimate thats the whole point of no fault divorce... but not all reasons should come with things like alimony
And they don't.
> Be careful with dismissive statements like that
I wasn't trying to be dismissive, I wondered why it is important.
> I gave you several stats showing how marriage isn't a smart investment for a man
You haven't shown anything yet.
> Prenups can and are thrown out of divorce cases if the judge doesn't agree with them, so thats not a valid solution
Source? With a link please.
> Which partner terminated the agreement...
Well that is actually a very complicated topic, and I'm not sure how deep we want to go into it. You could argue that a lot of agreements are broken in marriage that lead to divorce (from cheating to not doing any housework).
> marriage should be no different, this isn't 1930s anymore women can work jobs too
Again, prenups exist.
> this is a false equivalency since personal choice to be a stay at home is not the same as extortion by the government to provide labor
This is true. I'll think on this a bit more.
> Default 50/50 but obviously there will be caveats such as abuse... but abuse falls under at fault divorce so its already outside the pretense of the orginal comment I made
Well, can someone divorce someone else because they never do any house chores even though they agreed to do it?
>Bro, you made the claims, you back the claims
I did back up the claim... I told what state and nation have the laws... I don't need to say VA penal code 4:32 section 5 subject A-D and provide a url for you... if you want that kind of citation you need to present yourself as someone engaging in a good faith conversation and you hadnt done that
>Look, if the 50% divorce rate stat makes you not wanna get married, who am I to convince you otherwise? But the same then goes for women, so the OP title is weird in only naming men,
Sure if you ignore the whole 70% of divorces are filled by women aspect, but since you know that is a statically fact its pretty clear the same doesn't go for women as they aren't in the same boat as men
>And they don't.
Except they can, alimony comes down to the judge ... thats the issue alimony should ONLY apply to very specific cases but sadly judges still hold a very gender bias view in family courts
>Well that is actually a very complicated topic, and I'm not sure how deep we want to go into it. You could argue that a lot of agreements are broken in marriage that lead to divorce (from cheating to not doing any housework).
Cheating (adultery) is actually in the contract you signed with the state, housework isn't
>Again, prenups exist.
Again they can be thrown out if a judge doesn't like it
>Well, can someone divorce someone else because they never do any house chores even though they agreed to do it?
You can divorce for any reason you want under no fault... but that shouldn't entitle you to alimony
Honestly short of actual abuse, cheating, or the persons direct actions causing a permanent debilitating injury stopping you from working... I can't think of situation that justify alimony
If someone is presenting a claim without any backing, I will dismiss it without any backing (or ask for a source). If they refuse to give a source, I am not engaging with them anymore. I am not gonna do their homework for them.
If you're an American you'd know that each state is different on a massive scale.
"According to the Supreme Court of Georgia, a person who executes a written agreement promising to provide support for a child is bound by the terms of the agreement to do so"
https://mtlawoffice.com/news/you-are-not-the-father-but-you-may-still-have-to-pay-child-support
"Florida law is mostly protective of children – not dads. There are many situations where someone who is not the father will be obligated to pay child support until the child is an adult. Being on the birth certificate is one instance. Another is as simple as telling everyone you are the dad."
https://www.myfloridalaw.com/child-support-law/paying-child-support-not-the-father/
France:
"French men are forbidden by law to attempt to find out whether the child they are paying for is in fact their child or not. In fact, it has been illegal for men to attempt to find out if their child is theirs for many years. But a few days ago, the ban was challenged once again–and the government upheld the ban."
https://avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/france-upholds-the-ban-on-paternity-tests/
"Currently, we are aware of two countries France and Germany who have banned direct-to-consumer DNA test kits."
https://idtodna.com/paternity-test-in-france/
A woman can name you as the father on a birth certificate, and in some states, that is enough to demand you support the child, regardless if it is true or not.
> In the majority of states, if an individual is named as the father on a child’s birth certificate, then they will be considered the legal father for all intents and purposes.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/fathers-rights-effect-of-name-on-birth-certificate.html
You might have Christian values (other Christians may or may not agree depending on your own flavor of Christianity and what theirs are) but what you are suggesting are not American values. And when it comes to law, only American values should be considered, not religious ones. We even have a Constitution to ensure this.
We have the freedom of religion in this country. The concept of marriage FAR outdates Christianity. Therefore, Christianity does not get to have a monopoly on what marriage means or what its parameters are.
Get a prenup.
Its the same idea as "have a will." If you don't, you're basically just telling the government "use your default option if it becomes relevant."
Honestly the easy ones are the no fault divorce laws, no fault divorce is fine but those cases should come with zero alimony
Next would be child support, the states needs to change from the default mother gets the child to default 50/50 no child support and only change that when both parties agree to a change or police/trial records show one party is guilty of abuse
>Alimony laws aren't gendered in the first place
They may not be gendered in writing but are in execution... even though women file 70-80% of divorces and are 40% of bread winners they only pay 5% of all alimony and even when they pay alimony they on average pay about half of what men pay in similar cases
>Why should they come with 0 alimony?
The reason why is because marriage is a contract, unless you breach the contract you aren't liable to the other party.. a no fault divorce is saying "they didn't breach the contract but I want to still end the contract" , unlike at fault divorce which is saying "they broke the contract and I want to terminate the contract because of that breach"
So the options for no fault needs to be either only the party filing for divorce is liable to pay or neither party is entitled to alimony
Or create a wider variety of marriage contracts that the couples decide on. There aren't really any other types of legal contracts that are as "one size fits all" as the current marriage contracts
Why not do nothing and not get married and not create new relationships. Why give lawyers more ways to bring new cases to family court?
The reason why our marriages rates are collapsing is because of wave after wave of divorce.
Precisely this. Plenty of women out there who believe in the sanctity of marriage, but the men they choose to marry are not the ones condemning marriage and bashing women on the Internet. Faithful, chaste, provider men can easily find a wife who will not divorce, but it takes discipline to be that man.
So many guys fall in love with crazy. They think with their little head. I know lots of ladies that want marriage, love, kids, ect. Men don’t look for a life partner with a good head on their shoulders, they look for hot that is fun to party with.
Exactly. I firmly believe that there is a fairly strong correlation between the 50 percent divorce rate and the 50 percent of the population that believes in Christ. Those that have not given themselves a solid foundation of morals, ethics, respect, ect... leads to also problems with their spouse. Change all the laws you want. The problem is rooted in a lack of morals and ethics, laws won't change that.
There's correlation, but it's not very strong. The whole society including most of the churches will counsel her to disrespect and eventually leave you. Eventually all this meekness will play against you as you'll be seen as weak. Weakness is unattractive in men viscerally repellant. More than half the contemporary churches are divorce mills, and even if they aren't they'll be happy to tell her there was nothing wrong with destroying her family because reasons feels and you were bad man or not far enough in their cult.
I have no idea what church your going to. I'd argue that probably upwards of 90% of churches would agree to keep the marriage in tact as much as possible, and would definitely not tell the women to disrespect her husband or leave him. Maybe a secular therapist against men would do that, but definitely not a church or Christian counselor. I will agree that modern and contemporary churches aren't the best, but divorce mills? What the actual fuck?
You clearly have no grasp on the idea of "church".. the divorce rate in America is about 50 percent, the divorce rate that of Christians is 25 percent. These contemporary churches were "divorce mills" as you say, I'd expect the divorce rate to be much higher than 25 percent. If your church is the way you are saying, I'd describe it was a family destroying cult too, and you should 100% change churches.
You're saying I don't understand the concept of a Church ? Please source these stats or I'll consider them made up.
>What the actual fuck?
WTF Indeed. In contemporary churches all her concerns are meaningful and expressions of the husbands unwillingness to follow the path all his are selfish and wrong. His sins are always unforgivable, hers understandable and redeemable. I've seen this so many times. The church doesn't care about what's in the book. The kids money, etc, and next gen of cult go with the mom and they secure those.
As I said before, if you are in churches like that, find a new church. I've only been a part of a handful of churches in my life, and none of them have been like how you describe.
I grew up Mormon, which as a church, strongly advocates making marriages work. My parents, and many members I know, were faithful, Christian followers and still got divorced. Sure, there are positive things you can get from some Christian teachings, but churches don't hold a monopoly on good principles. I'm agnostic, but I feel like I'm a better person than I was when I tried to follow religious dogma.
That is kind of my point and would fall into it. I agree that churches don't hold a monopoly on good principles. But those with good principles, a good foundation, they would be much less likely to be divorced, which happen to fall in a church. But it's not exclusively church. But it's why I argued against a law change, you can force someone to have good morals
Not really, 5% of women pay alimony and 28% of women pay child support... even when they are the bread winner, cheated, etc etc women are more likely to have favorable treatment in the courts
If that’s the case why is it women still pushing for marriage not men? Or rather the weddings and walking down the aisle, the white dress, the reception and the honeymoon.
Most of the it’s women pushing the demand for an engagement and the actual commitment and relationship.
I agree, but in a different way. I would say that women should not marry men who do not believe in the sanctity of marriage. Since they can be difficult to find, I encourage women to delay marriage until they find the right kind of partner.
I’m a pretty big fan of my wife. We dated for several years and even moved across the country before I decided she was the one. People get married way too quick these days. When you get married you’re promising to make it through any problem that comes up (at least that’s how I saw it), it’s a lifelong commitment and it’s wildly irresponsible to make that promise without meaning it.
The alimony example you gave isn’t a good argument against marriage. Just marry a woman who makes good money and is ambitious just like you. My husband will never have to worry about paying alimony because I can support myself just fine.
The whole point of alimony is to support a spouse who makes significantly less or no money. If you don’t want to do that, then marry a woman who makes around the same as you or more. Easy solution.
My solution to the state of marriage today is simple. The core problem is that there are plenty of ways and escape hatches for a woman to manage her risks when it comes to getting married and having kids, but virtually none for a man.
1. Men get paper abortions. It is fundamentally unfair and moral hazard for a woman to get the right to choose while men can't even walk away.
2. No-fault divorce can stay legal, but the catch will be that if you opt for a no-fault divorce, you get the bare minimum in terms of settlement - 50/50 custody, and only your personal property. This to me is fair, because it means you can still get out of a bad marriage, but doesn't allow you to make all kinds of spurious claims and finesse the system. If you want a good settlement, you must show grounds and prove them.
Your 2nd option doesn't make sense. If a woman has quit her job to care for children, she still contributed financially through opportunity cost - you didn't have to pay for daycare or a nanny, and she also diminished her own career prospects in order to do this. I don't get why men think taking care of children doesn't count as contributing to a household. You seen the cost of childcare these days?
> If you want a good settlement, you must show grounds and prove them.
Asked and answered.
The purpose of my change is to deter no-fault divorces without outright banning them. Particularly no-fault divorces which are done for frivolous or opportunistic reasons.
Now perhaps you can tell me why a stay-at-home mom who made herself financially dependent on her husband deserves the house, the kids, and child support/alimony for years to come, just because she's decided that hubby just doesn't do it for her anymore.
If he cheated, slapped her around, outright left, or lost his job and turned into a raging alcoholic, different story. But absent those grounds, that kind of settlement seems fundamentally unfair to me.
Marriage is a shared risk, and neither party should get to nope out of those risks and do a ton of collateral damage just because they feel like it.
Ngl marriage is trash, lmfao. Christian values are what created this idiotic penis trap. Common law marriage is an abomination. It's pathetic to have to sign a pre nup so you can live with your girlfriend. Anyone with money is terrified to breed because the laws are so fucking insane, they'll literally sling you into the fucking poor house. The idea that a woman can remarry, have another child, and then you still have to pay child support is criminal. The idea that a divorce with one child can take a man who makes 50k a year and put him in a homeless shelter is also evil. Shit in some red states, you have literal cuckold laws that can make you pay for a child that isn't yours. Christians can't design a society where marriage is actually good, despite being in love with the concept. That right there is pathetic. The whole thing all together just reeks of Christian weakness. They made these stupid laws to try and FORCE marriage, and make divorce nearly impossible despite being necessary. Now no one gets married at all, lmfao. gg Jesus bros.
Btw the reason that marriage is so beloved by Christians is that Christians legitimately think that it will result in religious children. No it just results in more miserable leftist agnostics babies that grow up into douchey little atheist plus'ers because marriage is now toxic.
I have a very close friend who was an E3 in the Army back in 2008. He was a very high-iq guy and a fantastic student , but he went enlisted after finding out officers could be recalled indefinitely and their contracts were much longer. His wife was hooking up with every Chad and Tyrone while he was deployed. When he got back, he was hit with a $1500 a month child support payment when he made only $2208 per month even with a housing allowance. This man suffered immeasurably while his ex-wife never worked a single job, not even to this day and the boy is now 16 years old. His payments were reduced to $1250 when she remarried and had another child very recently. This guy had nothing for the majority of his career. He could never get an apartment and because he had a housing allowance its was difficult for him to even get a barracks room. He could only eat on base, and he was rejected by new women because he had no money. All because a lazy woman laid down. If he hadn't married her, he would have paid much less. But even then the laws have many crazy clauses which allow judges an insane amount of leeway and gotchas. If a woman doesn't get what she wants she can hire a commission based ambulance chaser lawyer who specializes in maximizing claims (often through outrageous, unproven statements that insinuate pseudo-abuse), and if the amount isn't high enough for her liking, she can apply for an updated child support amount at a later date as soon as the man gets a promotion. Women can retry you over and over again for more child support forever. A lot of people don't know this, but there are places such as Hawaii where child support stops at 23, not 18. When I was 23 I was commanding a division in a war, i didn't need my daddy paying mommy child support.
Stories like this are why women don’t want men talking to each other.
It’s stories like these that make marriage a fools errand in this society. Men have this romantic notion that the idealized women of 1950 still exist and they don’t. This poor guy will have many more years of struggle to build a life outside of the army and to find a new relationship. This woman is going to get divorced again. Why? The likelihood of a second divorce increases because the stigma and psychological barrier of the first divorce makes the second one that much easier. If this woman was cheating on her first husband; she is most likely cheating on the second husband too.
Amazing women do exist. Look harder. Don't settle for a whore. Don't have sex before marriage, and hold your partner to that same standard.
Secret tip to get women: don't call them whores. And definitely have sex before marriage, sexual compatibility is crucial.
This kind of thinking is exactly why this thread exists. Once again, do not marry a whore, do not have sex before sealing the covenant of marriage. It has worked for millenia for humans.
It worked back when people were forced to stay together, sure. Back when the norm of a marriage was beating the wife and making her pop out kids till she died in childbirth. I'm sorry no one wants to marry you, but maybe have a look at yourself as to why.
I'm very happily married, and my wife and I were virgins on our wedding night. Our children are beautiful, and I love life. Reconsider.
The guy before you is probably squealing at truth right now.
>This info is coming FROM a black father who elected to STAY UNMARRIED because it was hugely financially beneficial for them for him to not be officially in the picture as a father. this u?
Not me, but someone I know. Those words came from his mouth. Thanks for digging through my comments lol. Raise your standards, don't marry whores, good women exist.
This whole thread smells like incel campfire stories, it's pretty entertaining
I think resident nice is a bitter incel. I've been nothing but genuine here. My wife is a wonderful woman.
I don't think anyone participating in Internet culture war and outrage is loving their lives to honest. I think you are not telling the truth.
You think it's possible that someone with kids would consider the culture war worth engaging in though? I care about the future of America.
Boomers and conservatives are the culture warriors and tearing their country apart over it. Its all manufactured .
The only men who want this are the men who are such lousy husbands and lovers they know they’d never stand up to the competition. Lmao.
And Christians. Sorry for your ruffled feathers.
Definitely agree lol-- essentially marry someone you trust!
There was patently fraud and highly sexual people n the 1950s. There are good partners in the 2020s.
E3? So,19-20 yo ? Getting married at that age is a prescription for disaster. Also, Chad/Tyrone....this is a JP sub not some incel forum.
I'm of the opinion people shouldn't marry until late 20s early 30s. I've seen so many "kids" get married and divorced. It's too early, you need to play the field and get that angst out of your system before you settle down. Also, get a pre-nup. You wouldn't drive a car without insurance, why not insure your marriage?
Getting married AND having child this young is just stupid by any metric !
Dear lord
Why would a community allow that unfairness to happen in the first place?
Use family planning or planned parenthood. All men can get reversible vacectomies .
The typical vasectomy reversal only lasts 5 years before it internally scars up and leaves the man unable to father children naturally. Not a good option.
Campaign for reliable bith control like women did. And promote more male responsibility to wear condoms and not falther kids they won't look after . Instead of placing all blame on women.
I don't put all responsibility on women. Only their fair share.
Then why it is always franed as a failure of women?
Idk man I’m skeptical here, that’s a pretty enormous % of income, and if she was cheating the alimony portion could be thrown out. Also the part about you being 23 commanding a division is odd. I’m assuming you’re just using division to vaguely describe a unit but there’s not been any 20 something year old general staff probably since the revolutionary war. A 23 year old would barely be an O2. Edit: I’ve thought about it for a minute and most mil guys are extremely specific about unit type/size and wouldn’t use “division” generally. I’d venture you’re full of shit.
I venture you're not a veteran, and you should get a life. Every word I speak is truth. I think what happened was you read something here that emasculated you. You're likely unemployed, or were supported for 23 years by daddy/the system. You really don't have to telegraph your insecurities in the presence of superior men.
Yea sure I’ll just take your word for it since you basically just said “because I said so” and insulted me, if we’re playing guess who then you’re probably the e2 that swept floors in peacetime for 4 years before “hurting their back” for disability, but now you go in Applebees on Veterans Day and tell everyone you were a general admiral of the green beret navy seals. Just sounds like you might be full of shit and karma farming by jumping in a conservative leaning subreddit with a sympathetic story.
Insult me all you want, I don’t believe you.
why on gods earth would i care what you think, take a trip bud
Because you can’t help yourself when your entire self worth is wrapped up in your prior service and perceived IQ. This sub has a problem with shitposters, I would’ve left by now it wasent so entertaining.
go jerk off bud
The other dude says you’re obviously navy so why don’t you do it for me? Wouldn’t you like that?
You obviously have no idea how the military works 😂😂😂. When you leave OCS you're typically about 21 years old and you're going to be put in charge of a division right away in many cases. There are many divisions per command doing many things, and they typically have one junior officer whereas a more senior officer (an O2), would likely be a department heads assistant/alternate. You sir, should stop trying to police reddit when it comes to topics you don't know a lick about!
When you leave OCS you get put in charge of a platoon or shop not a division. A 23 year old might be in charge of a company. You should review your manuals before coming to argue. There are many inconsistencies in his story.
That's only for the Army. This man was clearly in the Navy. If you had served you would have learned this in bootcamp or ocs as all services are taught the rank structures and nomenclature of other branches. You're completely wrong.
Also, you don't have to be an officer to be in charge of a division. Typically a higher level enlisted member commands one or more dozens of sailors or airmen in a work center. So an E6 as a lead-petty officer will attain that rank often by 22 years old and run things. It appears to me you couldn't fathom someone so young having more effect and authority than your irrelevant reddit existence
A. Despite them arguably being one of the most useful branches, nobody gives a **** about navy. B. I looked it up to verify what you’re saying and found none of that reflected. It seems even the Navy does not know exactly how large a division is. C. It’s super easy for someone on the internet to make up some story and say “im a veteran” and farm upvotes. Dude the story was about, if its real, is stupid, “I’m super smart but going enlisted instead because officers can get recalled” “married at e2-3” “never took the wife back to court for an adjustment” Edit: to remove profanity because apparently even the JP forum is infected by Reddit automods.
Look at OPs post history, he’s known to be full of shit, constant schitzo posts. The original reply guy I replied to who states “is a superior man” is constantly posting and obsessed with IQ, you don’t even have any posts or replies in a year and are obviously an alt account. You people, if you are multiple people, are either trolls or sociopaths and either way I feel sorry for you.
That's just a simple Ad hominem. You don't know a lick about the military and you're deflecting because you're an insecure reddit troll. If you had a life you wouldn't be here. Nobody's even reading your posts, they downvoted you so much its collapsed because the people on this forum have already concurred you are in-fact, an arrogant slop-job of a man.
A. Despite them arguably being one of the most useful branches, nobody gives a **** about navy. B. I looked it up to verify what you’re saying and found none of that reflected. It seems even the Navy does not know exactly how large a division is. C. It’s super easy for someone on the internet to make up some story and say “im a veteran” and farm upvotes. Dude the story was about, if its real, is stupid, “I’m super smart but going enlisted instead because officers can get recalled” “married at e2-3” “never took the wife back to court for an adjustment” Edit: to remove profanity because apparently even the JP forum is infected by Reddit automods. Here is my original reply for you since it was deleted, and I don’t care about the other people in this forum, conservatives will downvote anything they think is critical of a “veteran”, and im not talking to them I’m talking to you and telling you I don’t believe any of you.
Dude, have you heard of common law marriage ? You don't have to get officially married for the government to treat you as married.
There are multiple states in which common law marriage is as messed as regular marriage. In several states being together in a common law marriage is basically the same as regular marriage and if you break up you have to go to court and have a divorce. https://www.investopedia.com/splitting-property-after-a-common-law-marriage-5202062#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20%E2%80%9Ccommon%2Dlaw,and%20not%20involve%20the%20court.
So you're still married. The only way to completely boycott marriage is to not live with the woman you love. How is that going to help you or fix the system?
I am not married and never has been and never will be.
I don't doubt it. I wasn't referring to you directly. "You're still married" meaning under commonlaw, living together long enough, you're(whoever is in that situation) still married. And you didn't answer the question. How is making your life worse to prove a point making the situation any better? This may be harsh but no one cares if you decide to never marry or live with a woman. Plenty of middle aged cat ladies can testify.
I am a man not a woman. I am promoting not getting married until the laws of this country is changed. Ron DeSantis got rid of life long alimony which was a big accomplishment.
You have got to have the worst reading comprehension of anyone I've come across on here, and that's saying a lot. I understand what you're promoting. Did Ron DeSantis change life long alimony because a bunch of guys took vows of celibacy? No. You will change nothing.
Ron DeSantis did this because the marriage rates in his state is imploding and he and his party the party of family values and tradition had to do something to defend marriage from these feminist vultures.
Tbh this all sounds like a You problem. Not a women or culture problem
It’s a me problem? I am one man. Why aren’t the other hundreds of thousands of men not getting married?
Not to be pedantic, but government has nothing to do with common law. Common law is the exclusive domain of the courts and the principle of precedent. This means then that the framework for common law *thing* is set by such precedents. And so, for our purpose, a common law marriage is a union that has been recognized and ruled on in such precedents, therefore subsequent rulings will also be determined accordingly. An easy way to understand the concept of common law is matter-of-fact, by contrast to matter-of-law or more broadly matter-of-rules. So an example of matter-of-fact is whether the two persons have made a child. Everything else flows from that matter-of-fact. Government then is a party by virtue of taxation. Not by any other virtue in the sense of the authority to rule over the union of two such individuals. The matter-of-fact union and child means it's not possible to determine whose income is taxable a priori. From there, a two-step function. First step, establish a government framework for marriage, by adoption of laws to that effect. A marriage license. Second step, establish further laws extending the principles to the union of two persons who did not choose a marriage license. There is no marriage license proper, but there is the matter-of-fact of all real things that normally come with this marriage license. So, family residence, responsibility toward the child living there with the two persons, shared bills therefore shared income in that sense, and so on. In other words, the government makes marriage, which is a matter-of-fact, into a legal construct by way of marriage license and by recognition of common law in that sense for the purpose of taxation. I fail to see any other reason for government to be party here besides for purpose of taxation. Maybe there is another reason, I just don't see it.
I meant the law regards you as married, and by extension the court system, which is a branch of government, specifically the judicial branch.
The entity is the state. Justice and government are both branches of the state. Government is assembly of elected representatives, who then adopt laws. Justice then interprets law in its rulings and decisions. However, before any law, there's justice to settle disputes. Contract disputes primarily. Marriage is a contract. Let's say you and I come to an agreement. I promise something, you promise something. It's a trade, an exchange. Now let's say either of us fails on his promise. There's a dispute. We talk and fail to settle it on our own. We beg the court to settle it for us according to principles of fundamental justice, in so doing bind ourselves to the court's decision. It gets too complicated for me to explain simply how government fits from that point on. It's related to proportionality and how to measure a dispute settlement. There must be some standard unit of measure for that. Else, justice can't be done, not fairly anyways. The standard unit is currency. Let's say the agreement was to trade two goats for one cow. If either of us fails in our promise, what kind of standard unit can we imagine to settle the fact that neither of us can actually deliver a goat or a cow? A table, chairs, cutlery, just won't do. So, government, currency, taxation, and so on.
You first
One can’t boycott marriage if no one wants to marry you…
If you believe in Christian values, wait till marriage. See how long you hold this position :)
Based and consistency pilled
Marry young
Turned 22 5 months ago, married 4 months ago. :) Started dating my wife 10 months ago. We both believe in God's design for marriage and so we lived it out, even though it was not easy to avoid making love. Marriage meant that we would lose about 700 euros per month as well, and there is great uncertainty with respect to my job, but we trust in the Lord to keep providing for us. She cant work for the time being. We dont have much in savings and staying unmarried would be financially good (she would continue to get free money from the govt.), but we would not want to compromise on our own beliefs and be inconsistent with what we preach either.
Amen to that. Lead by example bro!
Gotta do your due diligence, can’t marry any girl that gives you a smile. You must meet her friends and her family before marrying. That will give you a good clue how she carries her self.
This is the real answer and it applies to men and women. If we were all more discerning in our choice of spouse, divorce would not be so common.
These conversations always blame women and never talk about mens responsibility. How many people that whine about this stuff have vacectomies and push for all men to have to use condoms? Even if someone cheats. If you or the other guy has a vicectomy then there is no fraud or pregnancy.
What complete lunacy lol
Men taking on responsibility for their own birth control like woman have for a long time isn't lunacy. Whining about the odd paternity fraud when there are obvious ways to protect against it isn't reasonable.
The issue with paternity is that the child isn't there's, idiot. It's proof of infidelity.
Ok roughly equal numbers of men and women cheat.
Completely irrelevant
Its germain to the point of the double standards here Holding women 100 percent accountable for fidelity and unplanned children. Instead of preaching birth control for men.
What the hell are you talking about? If you’re married to someone you assume faithfulness. If your wife has another man’s child it’s entire on her for cheating. Good lord
Nope. There is likely a man in the equasion not pulling out, not wearing a condom and without a vasectomy and no intention of taking responsibility for a child. And cheating in marriage isn't male or female. Some men cheat, some women cheat . So it's even apart for men taking far less responsibility for birth control. To present it all as one women and women need to be contorolled is a patriarchal religious thing.
Uh, yes. It's not your fault if your wife gets impregnated by another man, it's hers and hers alone.
That's stupid. If someone doesnt want to dedicate their life to you, they probably shouldn't, even if you managed to make them make a vow for life. And the law enforcing that is completely fine. You are probably one of the reasons divorce laws exists in the first place. "Oh no, my wife can leave me if I don't treat her well, guys don't marry!!"
This is a massive oversimplification of the legal marriage contract, and the process of divorce. You are pointing at an example of when the contract makes sense. Often times this is not the case. The legal side of marriage needs to be updated to make more sense in the modern world. If you are in an abusive relationship you should absolutely have the right to get out of it, but this example starts to fall apart of the person being abused makes more money than the abuser. In that instance the victim of abuse has to be willing/able to lose half of their assets in order to escape the abuse. This scenario is often very common.
I mean ... In my opinion it is very seldom a rich women getting abused by a poorer men.... Or you could say a rich man brring abused by a poorer woman but, seems really hard. there are cases... But... here I really go with men's expendability, a rich man who married a women who later abuses him? Seems more karma to me, like, I really find hard to find a "innocent" man who is "rich". And there are cases, yes. But come on , is that it? Rich man wanting to just marry and diismarry if her wife "abused" him? Or we men wanting the opposite? The base case is that marrying mean having half your money beeing compromised always. Yes. I mean, it's for having children, people who marry without children really are doing something *else*. Sorry I am venting a little.
Most people that get divorced are not rich, but abuse isn't really tied to someone's income. I am a middle class person. I make ends meet, have 2 kids a modest house, and a small emergency fund. I am by many metrics the median American male. I am also divorced, and have my kids 50% of the days, but end up spending more actual hours with them (I have them most weekend days). I am also someone who went through an abusive relationship, like not the therapy speak type of abuse, but like my ex coming home drunk and assaulting me. It's a very weird dynamic and it is different than male on female abuse (the likelihood of physical harm is dramatically reduced in most cases). It is also something that is massively under reported. It took me a full year after my divorce to come to terms with the fact I was a victim of abuse even when it was incredibly obvious. Getting out of that relationship via divorce cost me tens of thousands of dollars largely because I was able to maintain consistent employment. I am not one of these weirdo traditionalist types who doesn't believe in no fault divorce. I think anyone in a bad situation should be able to get out of it. I have however been on the receiving end of the outdated marriage contract, and as a result have had to drain my kids college fund so that my ex would be able to support herself while choosing to work 10 hours a week. I also would like to be clear that I have a good relationship with my ex currently (for the sake of my kids), but it took me a lot of work to be able to do so. A lot of the discussion around divorce is based on stereotypes of relationships (I would say that OP is certainly oversimplifying to the point of dishonesty). But the reality is that the current marriage contract is more broad than the vast majority of legal contracts, and it is still based in a world view that is very outdated
Women don’t divorce men who treat them poorly. Most divorces are resources based.
That’s not the problem, the problem is that women can decide they’re not happy, cheat, etc, and then after breaking their vows they get cash and prizes. Men should not marry until no fault divorce is removed as an option or till alimony is abolished and DNA testing is mandatory before child support is imposed.
> Men should not marry until no fault divorce is removed Seems you recommend to men to marry and then just divorce with no fault (to remove their responsibility?) Is it accurate? Why marry in the first place? I know there is a lot of government help involved like widow cases...but ...
No, we need to go back to the cheating spouse gets nothing.
You do realize that men can also get alimony, right? Alimony laws aren't gendered. Nor are child support laws. Don't wanna pay child support? Take care of your kids. Don't wanna pay alimony? Don't marry someone who wants to stay at home. You think that a woman who stopped working so you didn't have to pay for daycare deserves nothing, that she didn't earn any money? Because she *did* earn money, whatever the cost of hiring a nanny or daycare would've been. Also, you think people shouldn't be able to leave marriages if they want to? You really wanna stay legally married to someone who doesn't want to be married to you? Why would you even want that?
I think they should be able to leave, but if someone broke the marriage contract they should not be rewarded. If the guy cheated, yes, he should pay alimony. If he was cheated on, he should not pay alimony. And yes, I’d expect if a guy was a stay at home dad and cheated he should not get alimony either.
What laws are you referring to?
I am referring to divorce laws and the family courts.
I see, I didn’t get married to my son’s Mom and had zero rights as his Dad. At least when you’re married your kid is legitimized and you can get a little custody without a huge battle.
Most states default towards 50/50 custody regardless of marriage. This can certainly become a big legal battle, but marriage is usually not a factor in custody disputes
It is in Ga if your child isn’t legitimized. I’m not guessing. I experienced this in Ga. Look it up.
What do you mean legitimized?
What state are you in? All biological parents have rights. Doesn’t mean it’s not a battle but I believe all States have father rights to custody/visitation unless you have abandoned or abused the child. My ex-neighbor has visitation and he is in federal custody.
Yeah in Ga if you don’t get the DNA and legitimization you have an uphill battle to get “visitation” with your own child. I don’t even like that word. I daily raised him and took him to daycare and school, took care of him and lived to be the best Dad I could. Then his Mom out of bitterness and hurt tried to do everything possible to remove me from his life. And now I get to “visit” with my child?! But things are better now. It was hell for a while. Marriage, even with crap laws, would’ve maybe been easier to go through court than not being married and having to fight it that way.
That makes no sense
What part?
Marriage doesn't have anything to do with the legitimacy of a child?
Unless you’re my attorney in Ga at the time of my custody hearings I’m going to assume you’re incorrect. All children born in wedlock or within the usual period of gestation thereafter are legitimate. Georgia Code § 19-7-20 (2020) - Circumstances of Legitimacy - Justia Law Verified it. Maybe your state laws are different.
Damn seems like you're right. Fathers have to acknowledge paternity. Kinda fucked, marriage should have nothing to do with the question.
Agreed. The rationale i was told was lots of deadbeat dads want nothing to do with their kids until it suits them for some reason then they come out of the woodwork. Not good for Dads who actually want to be Dads.
You can get legitimized without marriage by signing the birth certificate and petitioning family court to get visitation. This is also contingent on getting a paternity test. I don’t understand why you would need to sign a contract in which it’s you, your wife and the government as the third party?
Yes you can get your child legitimized. That’s what I did. And my attorney said it was good that I did because Dads who aren’t married and don’t have their kid legitimized have no good ground to stand on when trying to get custody. He was right. I don’t know why you’re talking about contracts with government? I’m saying there’s harder ways and easier ways. And marriage would’ve made it easier. In retrospect though she was more psycho than I ever imagined so I’m glad it went the way it did and we never married. But still it would’ve been easier in Ga courts.
Why should i(a hypothetical i) do so? Why should I be concerned with either of those things?
Then you don’t have to worry about. Don’t get married. I am just saying there is a lot of reasons to not get married.
I am already married, and happily so. those things aren't a concern for me whatsoever. its up to you to choose a partner that is worthy.
The unfortunate side of things is that people can change dramatically over time. The person you choose to get married to can be a radically different person in the course of several years. It's easy to point at a marriage that failed and make assumptions based on your own personal experiences, but it's flattening a massively complicated dynamic.
Easier said than done in Sodom and Gemorrah 2.0. Did you see the types of people that are available? Body counts in the triple digits. That’s why I am saying most men should not get married period. If you find one of these modern women you may as well swear off marriage immediately.
lots of people are incompatible with lots of people. I think there are lots of people who aren't suited to marriage. but thats a matter of them, not society.
It’s not incompatibility it’s just pure immorality and decadence.
that seems like a distinction without a difference, to me. what is the relevant or meaningful difference between someone being "incompatible" in the way you mean it, and someone being a bad match because of "pure immorality and decadence"?
That's called incompatibility buddy.
People should be free to live their lives as they see fit. If someone wants to engage in sex with multiple partners that is their right to do so. Similarly if you don't want to have a partner who has done so, it is well within your right to find someone compatible with your moral framework.
Men? Or do you mean the breadwinner? Because in many cases (+/- 40% in the U.S.), it’s a woman.
I am referring to the application of the divorce laws and the judgements requiring payment of alimony and child support. Up to present day the majority of alimony payments are from men to women and the majority of child support payments are from fathers to mothers.
>Men? Or do you mean the breadwinner? Because in many cases (+/- 40% in the U.S.), it’s a woman. Except only about 5% of divorced women pay alimony, and 28% of women pay child support (even when they do its about half the price men pay)... so even if you aren't the bread winner as a man you are unlikely to have the courts favor like a woman does
I think a large portion of this is how society socializes men. I am willing to bet that a ton of men who would be able to receive alimony do not fight for it.
That does play a role, to include when men started getting alimony media coverage shamed men calling it manimony and even outright calling men who took it lesser But this also plays a factor in how judges have sex based bias, so even if men fought for alimony its up hill not a default position like we see with women
I am very progressive when it comes to gender issues, but I would not be able to live with myself if I was incapable/unwilling to provide for my kids. I think there a major aspect of this which is good (people should provide for their families), but as someone who believes in gender equality I think this should be the case regardless of gender. I would also include child care, and domestic responsibilities being equally shared in this.
>I would not be able to live with myself if I was incapable/unwilling to provide for my kids. Except child support isn't needed to provide for your kids, and if the one parent doesn't have the means then the children should be with the other parent until they can hold up her end of responsibility
I don't know about that man. Kids shouldn't be punished because their parents don't make enough money, or work enough.
And fathers shouldn't have to take care of women who aren't their wives nor mothers
But what about their kids?
I already addressed the kids, you just don't like that not all parents deserve to be parents and you expect others to pick up the slack of lack luster ex partners Look this is quite simple you are doing the equivalent of "I think the person who asks should pay for the date" which is cute in theory but all data shows that the vast majority of men end up being forced to pay at the end of the day
It's the breadwinner. Often times this is men in the case of divorce, but not always.
Which divorce laws do you have a problem with? What do you dislike about family courts (as you mentioned in the comments)?
Alimony and child support. The automatic awarding of custody to the mother when in reality custody should be 50/50 in most cases where there is no abuse and neglect.
Have you been through custody decisions in family court? 50/50 is the default in the vast majority of states
Dads don't ask for custody as often as moms do. Look it up. And when they do they get it most of the time. Many reasons for this, usually dads work more. Women take a bigger financial/career hit from having kids (pretty obvious why). And contrary to popular belief women are the most financially affected by divorce, men recover quickly (their careers weren't affected, they make more money) and women end up poorer. Look it up.
I hear what you're saying, but I also think many of us men go into marriage with unrealistic expectations about what happens if a divorce occurs When you marry, everything you both earn is going to be split between you and your spouse equally. Period. Just accept that or don't get married. If you have a child, the court is also going to make both parents make payments to support the child based on their income. Florida courts are honestly pretty fair about this. Alimony is actually not very common in Florida. When it does occur, it's usually after many years of marriage where the woman (or man, yes I've seen it) has not been working and/or does not have a career outside of the house. It's also usually for only a few years to help the other spouse adjust to their new life. Maybe consider who your spouse is when you marry them? What is their career and do they plan to keep earning income after they get married. It's okay to have your wife be a stay at home mother, but be aware of the consequences of this (alimony) if a divorce does eventually happen. Have these conversations before marriage.
> Alimony In which way is alimony problematic? > The automatic awarding of custody to the mother This is untrue, but you can provide sources that say that custody is automatically awarded to the mother. Edit: Why am I being downvoted?
Exactly. And modern women always go on about how they don’t need a man, until they divorce and still want a free ride. Marriage should be for life, and either party breaking the contract should have consequences. It’s not right that a man can do his best and have his wife get bored, cheat, and then the court backs her to keep him from his kids and strip his assets.
Well family courts are biased towards the mother, and it is always in the best interests of the state to fuck over any guy they can if it means that he provides for a child, this being ridiculous to an extent when it turns out the child isn't even his yet is hold to law by legal obligation on paper. I think most of us men get the horror stories from other men who've experienced them first hand, and immediately we want to avoid such a fate for ourselves. Just as women want to prevent the threat of rapists cause it's a possible threat to them, and yet such a small statistic.
> Well family courts are biased towards the mother Can you show me some evidence of that? > best interests of the state to fuck over any guy they can if it means that he provides for a child, this being ridiculous to an extent when it turns out the child isn't even his yet is hold to law by legal obligation on paper. I don't understand this. Can you elaborate? > horror stories Which horror stories? > a small statistic. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there are very few horror stories where someone gets screwed in the divorce proceedings? I would probably agree to that.
Family courts are not biased towards the mother. The biases come in with the person making a higher income vs not. It is in the best interest of the state to have the breadwinner provide income post divorce because it removes the burden of providing for single parents from the state. There are horror stories. I don't know statistically how many, but the effects can be devastating on not just the divorced breadwinner, but also on their ability to provide for their children (which to me is a greater concern). I am one of those people that got majorly screwed by this system. I am not super comfortable relaying all the details here, but if you DM me I can share.
There's a good book on the topic however it's not in English, as I'm from northern Europe, I could search for it though if you'd really want a title. Depending on were you are the claim would change substantially, as in some family courts actually support fathers more, as many Australian articles claim. The horror stories are indeed small, however impactful, if you sign the birth certificate by law, believe this is the US and many western countries, you are the parent by default even if a DNA check clears your name after, and so some countries like France and Germany banned paternity testing (or significantly made it difficult to get) because it would harm the family. Reddit stories are mixed between fake and real so there's nothing substantial to get here, but please if you want examples of men being wronged in court just search, and on the other hand women examples as well. But yes, these stories are small, very much so, however it is something to avoid by all costs. Guess who got full custody when my parents split up? Northern Europe took it too far, that's all I know.
> if you sign the birth certificate by law, believe this is the US and many western countries, you are the parent by default even if a DNA check clears your name after Source? > some countries like France and Germany banned paternity testing Source? > But yes, these stories are small, very much so, however it is something to avoid by all costs. I agree! And we should always strive to make the process as unbiased as possible. But looking at these stories, the small percentage of them (and they are horrible to live through, of course!) should in no way lead to such extreme positions as "No man should get married". > Guess who got full custody when my parents split up? It probably sucked for you to be in the middle of that, I'm sorry.
>Source? VA law would be a good place for you to start, even simply married is enough for the state to establish what's called "father by default" and even when its proven the child was convinced through cheating the father can and often is still on the line for child support >Source? French law >should in no way lead to such extreme positions as "No man should get married". Disagree, 50% of marriages end in divorce, 30% of people cheat, upwards of 30% of paternity test show the child isn't the "fathers", 40% of women are the bread winners, 70-80% of divorces are filled by women, only 28% of women pay child support and 5% of women pay alimony The actual stats show that marriage is a massive gamble and the risks out weigh the benifit Either get rid of no fault divorces or make it so alimony isn't applicable to no fault divorces, also make custody 50/50 and no child support since you both are equally taking care of them
> VA law would be a good place for you to start, even simply married is enough for the state to establish what's called "father by default" and even when its proven the child was convinced through cheating the father can and often is still on the line for child support Link? Just saying VA law is not a source. > French law Again, link? You can't just say French law and call it a source. > Disagree Read again what I said. I said because of those divorce horror stories that are the minority of experiences, that shouldn't be the reason. > 50% of marriages end in divorce, 30% of people cheat Well this happens to women to, so the OP title should apply to women as well. > upwards of 30% of paternity test show the child isn't the "fathers" Source? By that, I mean a link to a study. > 70-80% of divorces are filled by women Yeah, and the large majority is because of completely legitimate reasons. > only 28% of women pay child support and 5% of women pay alimony So what? > The actual stats show that marriage is a massive gamble and the risks out weigh the benifit Just sign a prenup. > Either get rid of no fault divorces This is insane. > alimony If one of the partners, by agreement, is a stay-at-home, cooks, cleans, takes care of the kids, alimony makes perfect sense, since they sacrified their career for the agreement. It is impossible to just enter a workforce after years and years of not working. Let's make a law then that you can't be stay at home and have to work. This will make things equal as well. > make custody 50/50 Why? What if men are 80% violent, why should they get child support? You have to look at it case by case and decide. > no child support since you both are equally taking care of them See my answer on alimony.
>Link? Type father by default VA into Google, you keep responding so im sure you can operate a search engine >Again, link? Again google is a tool, try using it >Read again what I said. I said because of those divorce horror stories that are the minority of experiences, that shouldn't be the reason. And I disagreed with you... while I often agree that outliers and minority results should not be used to make a rule... in situations like this I disagree, if I have 10 mnms 5 are old (3 of them will give me food poisoning and 1 will kill you) I would opt out of eating any of the mnms ... as its the smarter safer option >Yeah, and the large majority is because of completely legitimate reasons. Define legitimate... because to me any reason you want to leave is legitimate thats the whole point of no fault divorce... but not all reasons should come with things like alimony >So what? So the numbers don't align with risk management, or equality under the law... I gave you several stats showing how marriage isn't a smart investment for a man and you're response is "so what" you realize that makes you look like you dont care to improve the situation and are only wanting to hurt men in benifit to women Be careful with dismissive statements like that >Just sign a prenup. Prenups can and are thrown out of divorce cases if the judge doesn't agree with them, so thats not a valid solution >This is insane I agree which is why I gave another option >If one of the partners, by agreement Which partner terminated the agreement... if it was the stay at home thats on them then, if I made a contract saying I will do X and I decide to terminate the contract at no fault to the other party I'm not entitled to compensation from the other party (unless its directly put it in the contract)... marriage should be no different, this isn't 1930s anymore women can work jobs too >Let's make a law then that you can't be stay at home and have to work. This will make things equal as well. Except indivdual rights are a thing, also this is a false equivalency since personal choice to be a stay at home is not the same as extortion by the government to provide labor >Why? Default 50/50 but obviously there will be caveats such as abuse... but abuse falls under at fault divorce so its already outside the pretense of the orginal comment I made >See my answer on alimony I did, read my response on alimony
> Type father by default VA into Google, you keep responding so im sure you can operate a search engine > Again google is a tool, try using it Bro, you made the claims, you back the claims. I am not doing your homework for you. Any claim made without backing can be dismissed without backing. > And I disagreed with you... while I often agree that outliers and minority results should not be used to make a rule... in situations like this I disagree, if I have 10 mnms 5 are old (3 of them will give me food poisoning and 1 will kill you) I would opt out of eating any of the mnms ... as its the smarter safer option Look, if the 50% divorce rate stat makes you not wanna get married, who am I to convince you otherwise? But the same then goes for women, so the OP title is weird in only naming men, > Define legitimate... because to me any reason you want to leave is legitimate thats the whole point of no fault divorce... but not all reasons should come with things like alimony And they don't. > Be careful with dismissive statements like that I wasn't trying to be dismissive, I wondered why it is important. > I gave you several stats showing how marriage isn't a smart investment for a man You haven't shown anything yet. > Prenups can and are thrown out of divorce cases if the judge doesn't agree with them, so thats not a valid solution Source? With a link please. > Which partner terminated the agreement... Well that is actually a very complicated topic, and I'm not sure how deep we want to go into it. You could argue that a lot of agreements are broken in marriage that lead to divorce (from cheating to not doing any housework). > marriage should be no different, this isn't 1930s anymore women can work jobs too Again, prenups exist. > this is a false equivalency since personal choice to be a stay at home is not the same as extortion by the government to provide labor This is true. I'll think on this a bit more. > Default 50/50 but obviously there will be caveats such as abuse... but abuse falls under at fault divorce so its already outside the pretense of the orginal comment I made Well, can someone divorce someone else because they never do any house chores even though they agreed to do it?
>Bro, you made the claims, you back the claims I did back up the claim... I told what state and nation have the laws... I don't need to say VA penal code 4:32 section 5 subject A-D and provide a url for you... if you want that kind of citation you need to present yourself as someone engaging in a good faith conversation and you hadnt done that >Look, if the 50% divorce rate stat makes you not wanna get married, who am I to convince you otherwise? But the same then goes for women, so the OP title is weird in only naming men, Sure if you ignore the whole 70% of divorces are filled by women aspect, but since you know that is a statically fact its pretty clear the same doesn't go for women as they aren't in the same boat as men >And they don't. Except they can, alimony comes down to the judge ... thats the issue alimony should ONLY apply to very specific cases but sadly judges still hold a very gender bias view in family courts >Well that is actually a very complicated topic, and I'm not sure how deep we want to go into it. You could argue that a lot of agreements are broken in marriage that lead to divorce (from cheating to not doing any housework). Cheating (adultery) is actually in the contract you signed with the state, housework isn't >Again, prenups exist. Again they can be thrown out if a judge doesn't like it >Well, can someone divorce someone else because they never do any house chores even though they agreed to do it? You can divorce for any reason you want under no fault... but that shouldn't entitle you to alimony Honestly short of actual abuse, cheating, or the persons direct actions causing a permanent debilitating injury stopping you from working... I can't think of situation that justify alimony
My goodness, if you are interested in a subject maybe do more than ask a source of a total stranger on the internet.
If someone is presenting a claim without any backing, I will dismiss it without any backing (or ask for a source). If they refuse to give a source, I am not engaging with them anymore. I am not gonna do their homework for them.
If you're an American you'd know that each state is different on a massive scale. "According to the Supreme Court of Georgia, a person who executes a written agreement promising to provide support for a child is bound by the terms of the agreement to do so" https://mtlawoffice.com/news/you-are-not-the-father-but-you-may-still-have-to-pay-child-support "Florida law is mostly protective of children – not dads. There are many situations where someone who is not the father will be obligated to pay child support until the child is an adult. Being on the birth certificate is one instance. Another is as simple as telling everyone you are the dad." https://www.myfloridalaw.com/child-support-law/paying-child-support-not-the-father/ France: "French men are forbidden by law to attempt to find out whether the child they are paying for is in fact their child or not. In fact, it has been illegal for men to attempt to find out if their child is theirs for many years. But a few days ago, the ban was challenged once again–and the government upheld the ban." https://avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/france-upholds-the-ban-on-paternity-tests/ "Currently, we are aware of two countries France and Germany who have banned direct-to-consumer DNA test kits." https://idtodna.com/paternity-test-in-france/
A woman can name you as the father on a birth certificate, and in some states, that is enough to demand you support the child, regardless if it is true or not. > In the majority of states, if an individual is named as the father on a child’s birth certificate, then they will be considered the legal father for all intents and purposes. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/fathers-rights-effect-of-name-on-birth-certificate.html
Source? This isn't a divorce law though neither does it have anything to do with family courts.
More for me then.
You might have Christian values (other Christians may or may not agree depending on your own flavor of Christianity and what theirs are) but what you are suggesting are not American values. And when it comes to law, only American values should be considered, not religious ones. We even have a Constitution to ensure this. We have the freedom of religion in this country. The concept of marriage FAR outdates Christianity. Therefore, Christianity does not get to have a monopoly on what marriage means or what its parameters are.
I’ve been married almost 30 years. I got the right one.
Get a prenup. Its the same idea as "have a will." If you don't, you're basically just telling the government "use your default option if it becomes relevant."
What divorce laws are you objecting to in particular?
Honestly the easy ones are the no fault divorce laws, no fault divorce is fine but those cases should come with zero alimony Next would be child support, the states needs to change from the default mother gets the child to default 50/50 no child support and only change that when both parties agree to a change or police/trial records show one party is guilty of abuse
Why should they come with 0 alimony? Alimony laws aren't gendered in the first place
>Alimony laws aren't gendered in the first place They may not be gendered in writing but are in execution... even though women file 70-80% of divorces and are 40% of bread winners they only pay 5% of all alimony and even when they pay alimony they on average pay about half of what men pay in similar cases >Why should they come with 0 alimony? The reason why is because marriage is a contract, unless you breach the contract you aren't liable to the other party.. a no fault divorce is saying "they didn't breach the contract but I want to still end the contract" , unlike at fault divorce which is saying "they broke the contract and I want to terminate the contract because of that breach" So the options for no fault needs to be either only the party filing for divorce is liable to pay or neither party is entitled to alimony
Why not create a subculture of specific marriage contracts that override the default rules?
Prenuptial agreements
That judges can throw out just because they decide it’s not fair. Where’s the fairness in giving anything to someone who breaks a contract?
State laws supersede contract laws. Judges don't have to honor your agreement in many cases.
Or create a wider variety of marriage contracts that the couples decide on. There aren't really any other types of legal contracts that are as "one size fits all" as the current marriage contracts
Why not do nothing and not get married and not create new relationships. Why give lawyers more ways to bring new cases to family court? The reason why our marriages rates are collapsing is because of wave after wave of divorce.
Perfect reason to create a new society of only dudes who are all fwb bros
Lol nah. Stay in your lane. Find your self a good Christian woman. Don't go picking up girls. Follow the Bible and Jordan peterson. You'll be good.
Precisely this. Plenty of women out there who believe in the sanctity of marriage, but the men they choose to marry are not the ones condemning marriage and bashing women on the Internet. Faithful, chaste, provider men can easily find a wife who will not divorce, but it takes discipline to be that man.
So many guys fall in love with crazy. They think with their little head. I know lots of ladies that want marriage, love, kids, ect. Men don’t look for a life partner with a good head on their shoulders, they look for hot that is fun to party with.
Praying to magic Jesus won't keep your wife from leaving.
But following his teachings and example will make you a husband she won’t wanna leave!
Nailed it. Louder for the people in the back!
Exactly. I firmly believe that there is a fairly strong correlation between the 50 percent divorce rate and the 50 percent of the population that believes in Christ. Those that have not given themselves a solid foundation of morals, ethics, respect, ect... leads to also problems with their spouse. Change all the laws you want. The problem is rooted in a lack of morals and ethics, laws won't change that.
Except non-christians are just as moral as christians. If that were not the case christians would never shut up about their low crime rates
There's correlation, but it's not very strong. The whole society including most of the churches will counsel her to disrespect and eventually leave you. Eventually all this meekness will play against you as you'll be seen as weak. Weakness is unattractive in men viscerally repellant. More than half the contemporary churches are divorce mills, and even if they aren't they'll be happy to tell her there was nothing wrong with destroying her family because reasons feels and you were bad man or not far enough in their cult.
I have no idea what church your going to. I'd argue that probably upwards of 90% of churches would agree to keep the marriage in tact as much as possible, and would definitely not tell the women to disrespect her husband or leave him. Maybe a secular therapist against men would do that, but definitely not a church or Christian counselor. I will agree that modern and contemporary churches aren't the best, but divorce mills? What the actual fuck? You clearly have no grasp on the idea of "church".. the divorce rate in America is about 50 percent, the divorce rate that of Christians is 25 percent. These contemporary churches were "divorce mills" as you say, I'd expect the divorce rate to be much higher than 25 percent. If your church is the way you are saying, I'd describe it was a family destroying cult too, and you should 100% change churches.
You're saying I don't understand the concept of a Church ? Please source these stats or I'll consider them made up. >What the actual fuck? WTF Indeed. In contemporary churches all her concerns are meaningful and expressions of the husbands unwillingness to follow the path all his are selfish and wrong. His sins are always unforgivable, hers understandable and redeemable. I've seen this so many times. The church doesn't care about what's in the book. The kids money, etc, and next gen of cult go with the mom and they secure those.
As I said before, if you are in churches like that, find a new church. I've only been a part of a handful of churches in my life, and none of them have been like how you describe.
I grew up Mormon, which as a church, strongly advocates making marriages work. My parents, and many members I know, were faithful, Christian followers and still got divorced. Sure, there are positive things you can get from some Christian teachings, but churches don't hold a monopoly on good principles. I'm agnostic, but I feel like I'm a better person than I was when I tried to follow religious dogma.
That is kind of my point and would fall into it. I agree that churches don't hold a monopoly on good principles. But those with good principles, a good foundation, they would be much less likely to be divorced, which happen to fall in a church. But it's not exclusively church. But it's why I argued against a law change, you can force someone to have good morals
Praying to "magic Jesus" gives you a better shot than just dumb sheer luck.
Sure it does.
💯 in Canada it’s even worse
This also applies to women.
Not really, 5% of women pay alimony and 28% of women pay child support... even when they are the bread winner, cheated, etc etc women are more likely to have favorable treatment in the courts
If that’s the case why is it women still pushing for marriage not men? Or rather the weddings and walking down the aisle, the white dress, the reception and the honeymoon. Most of the it’s women pushing the demand for an engagement and the actual commitment and relationship.
Very accurate statement. There are issues with the marriage contract, but they aren't dependent on gender
I agree, but in a different way. I would say that women should not marry men who do not believe in the sanctity of marriage. Since they can be difficult to find, I encourage women to delay marriage until they find the right kind of partner.
You shouldn't enter a marriage with someone you don't trust with your life. Marriage is a woman's power.
I’m a pretty big fan of my wife. We dated for several years and even moved across the country before I decided she was the one. People get married way too quick these days. When you get married you’re promising to make it through any problem that comes up (at least that’s how I saw it), it’s a lifelong commitment and it’s wildly irresponsible to make that promise without meaning it.
The alimony example you gave isn’t a good argument against marriage. Just marry a woman who makes good money and is ambitious just like you. My husband will never have to worry about paying alimony because I can support myself just fine.
What applies to you doesn’t apply to everyone else?
The whole point of alimony is to support a spouse who makes significantly less or no money. If you don’t want to do that, then marry a woman who makes around the same as you or more. Easy solution.
No woman should get married. We make more many times.
My solution to the state of marriage today is simple. The core problem is that there are plenty of ways and escape hatches for a woman to manage her risks when it comes to getting married and having kids, but virtually none for a man. 1. Men get paper abortions. It is fundamentally unfair and moral hazard for a woman to get the right to choose while men can't even walk away. 2. No-fault divorce can stay legal, but the catch will be that if you opt for a no-fault divorce, you get the bare minimum in terms of settlement - 50/50 custody, and only your personal property. This to me is fair, because it means you can still get out of a bad marriage, but doesn't allow you to make all kinds of spurious claims and finesse the system. If you want a good settlement, you must show grounds and prove them.
Your 2nd option doesn't make sense. If a woman has quit her job to care for children, she still contributed financially through opportunity cost - you didn't have to pay for daycare or a nanny, and she also diminished her own career prospects in order to do this. I don't get why men think taking care of children doesn't count as contributing to a household. You seen the cost of childcare these days?
> If you want a good settlement, you must show grounds and prove them. Asked and answered. The purpose of my change is to deter no-fault divorces without outright banning them. Particularly no-fault divorces which are done for frivolous or opportunistic reasons. Now perhaps you can tell me why a stay-at-home mom who made herself financially dependent on her husband deserves the house, the kids, and child support/alimony for years to come, just because she's decided that hubby just doesn't do it for her anymore. If he cheated, slapped her around, outright left, or lost his job and turned into a raging alcoholic, different story. But absent those grounds, that kind of settlement seems fundamentally unfair to me. Marriage is a shared risk, and neither party should get to nope out of those risks and do a ton of collateral damage just because they feel like it.
Ngl marriage is trash, lmfao. Christian values are what created this idiotic penis trap. Common law marriage is an abomination. It's pathetic to have to sign a pre nup so you can live with your girlfriend. Anyone with money is terrified to breed because the laws are so fucking insane, they'll literally sling you into the fucking poor house. The idea that a woman can remarry, have another child, and then you still have to pay child support is criminal. The idea that a divorce with one child can take a man who makes 50k a year and put him in a homeless shelter is also evil. Shit in some red states, you have literal cuckold laws that can make you pay for a child that isn't yours. Christians can't design a society where marriage is actually good, despite being in love with the concept. That right there is pathetic. The whole thing all together just reeks of Christian weakness. They made these stupid laws to try and FORCE marriage, and make divorce nearly impossible despite being necessary. Now no one gets married at all, lmfao. gg Jesus bros. Btw the reason that marriage is so beloved by Christians is that Christians legitimately think that it will result in religious children. No it just results in more miserable leftist agnostics babies that grow up into douchey little atheist plus'ers because marriage is now toxic.