Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A Convenient MarriageFollow

#27 Mar 21 2012 at 10:16 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
And on the off chance that he should knock her up during their marriage business transaction, the child will be better protected by the law than otherwise and be more likely to enjoy positive outcomes as a result. So mission accomplished!


ITT: Gbaji ***** all over traditional marriage. He's about as conservative as Romney now...
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#28 Mar 21 2012 at 10:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Actually, I'm pretty certain legalised marriages in the West started as property, business, and treaty affairs. They only happened between men of property, and women whose fathers owned property, which was a tiny minority of the population for centuries. The marriage contracts, as opposed to the usual marriage certificate of today (unless a pre-nup is involved), were usually elaborate documents swapping assets, real estate and money between the groom and father-in-law. It was unusual for the wife to receive any of these things as part of the contract, as it was presumed that her husband would provide for her out of his own income, and after that her son/s or son/s-in-law would. The social apex of marriage was the union of a ruler with the daughter or sister of another ruler, and involved treaty law. Given the number of baronies, principalities and dukedoms and postage stamp kingdoms around, those types of marriages were really rather common.

In a minority of cases the marriage contract would stipulate the woman would receive ownership of a sum of money, which she then had a right to dispose as she liked in her own will. This was usually a privilege granted to higher ranking women.

Most other people got married by moving in with one another, with or without a personal ceremony, like holding hands and jumping over a broomstick together in the village square. The vast majority of people couldn't afford the church fee to get married in a church, and before somewhere in the 1800's, it wasnt' expected of anyone not in the upper class. Go back far enough, and once women left puberty they were addressed as "Mrs [father's surname]" as a gesture of respect, before they lost their virginity or paired up with someone.

Basically, marriage was a loveless, romanticless, institution for centuries. The husband in many eras and places was not expected to remain faithful, and after the wife had produced "an heir and a spare" wives were often allowed and expected to have discreet affairs too. People who coupled up for love usually did so outside marriage.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 12:52am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#29 Mar 21 2012 at 11:51 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
It was actually very heavily discouraged to marry for love for most of the West's history. And I mean that literally. Because of the immoral nature of sexuality (according to their value set), it was believed that any marriage formed from love would lead the couple into sin, causing them to have *** for pleasure, rather than solely for procreation. For many years, lust was seen as being just as bad as the actual act.

We don't really see any kind of notable turn from this paradigm until VERY recent history, and it completely coincides with the increase in autonomy for women. Until they had a say in their marriages (and the ability to pursue other options should they turn down a proposal), marriages were not formed from love.

In the upper classes, this is generally the mid 19th century. Later for the lower classes. (Though it shed its negative connotations earlier than that, so marriages including love were not discouraged).

Many of our grandparents probably married without any particular attention paid to love. Not because they didn't think love was something generally valuable, but because it was largely just assumed you would come to love your spouse and, if you didn't, that wasn't the end of the world. An establishment and stable homelife was far more valuable, generally speaking.

[EDIT]

This is meant to go off of Ari's post, commenting on the actual value placed on love in a marriage. For a great part of our recent history, that value was actually negative.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 1:53am by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#30 Mar 22 2012 at 6:45 AM Rating: Good
****
4,595 posts
Assuming they actually have a strong emotional connection, and were considering marriage in the future, this would be a pretty weak foundation to start that marriage on. If they are planning on continuing this relationship beyond school I forsee the "Ya, well you only married me to save money on school!" argument rearing its ugly head at the most inopportune times.

Considering the dismal success rate of marriages today anyway, I would advise starting one on as solid of a foundation as possible.

gbaji wrote:
...the child will be better protected by the law than otherwise and be more likely to enjoy positive outcomes as a result....


Perhaps this was made in jest, but divorce is statistically more likely to result in overall negative outcomes for children.

The overall result of this analysis was that children from divorced families are on "average" somewhat worse off than children who have lived in intact families.

Apparently markup works a little differently than it did 7 years ago...

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 8:58am by xythex
____________________________
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere

Oh **** camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
#31 Mar 22 2012 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
My local paper had this sort of related story today....

The KJ wrote:
The new research, part of a marriage survey of 22,000 men and women, suggests times have changed from the days when living together signaled poor chances for a successful marriage later.

"It's not playing as big a role in predicting divorce as it used to," said Casey Copen, lead author of the study.

Living together before marriage has been a long-growing trend. In the late 1960s, only about 10 percent of U.S. couples moved in together first, and they ended up with higher divorce rates.

Today, about 60 percent of couples live together before they first marry.


Back to my situation.....

Quote:
Assuming they actually have a strong emotional connection, and were considering marriage in the future, this would be a pretty weak foundation to start that marriage on. If they are planning on continuing this relationship beyond school I forsee the "Ya, well you only married me to save money on school!" argument rearing its ugly head at the most inopportune times.
I had thought along this line as well. However the flip side argument is that marrying early and avoiding starting out their lives together up to their eyeballs in debt from student loans might help towards the long-term success of the marriage. Unfortunately money is responsible for the demise of many unions.

edited to add link. Smiley: blush




Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 3:34pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#32 Mar 22 2012 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
xythex wrote:
Assuming they actually have a strong emotional connection, and were considering marriage in the future, this would be a pretty weak foundation to start that marriage on. If they are planning on continuing this relationship beyond school I forsee the "Ya, well you only married me to save money on school!" argument rearing its ugly head at the most inopportune times.

Considering the dismal success rate of marriages today anyway, I would advise starting one on as solid of a foundation as possible.

gbaji wrote:
...the child will be better protected by the law than otherwise and be more likely to enjoy positive outcomes as a result....


Perhaps this was made in jest, but divorce is statistically more likely to result in overall negative outcomes for children.

The overall result of this analysis was that children from divorced families are on "average" somewhat worse off than children who have lived in intact families.

Apparently markup works a little differently than it did 7 years ago...

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 8:58am by xythex
I assume gbaji meant that the kid would be better off being born to a married couple who later divorce versus being born to a couple that was just living together and later split. Still, a pretty stupid statement. What makes a kid born to a couple that divorces more 'legally protected' than being born to a couple that never marries and splits (unless the married couple had a prenup that specifically addresses kids)?

They're both white and are of different sexes, so they're relatively free from discriminatory legal practices whether married, divorced or cohabitating.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#33 Mar 22 2012 at 7:56 AM Rating: Decent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Waits with glee for xythex to discover the new gbaji.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#34 Mar 22 2012 at 8:41 AM Rating: Excellent
There is a new gbaji? Funny, because I'm not wiping any differently lately.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#35 Mar 22 2012 at 9:01 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Quiet son, your elders are talking.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#36 Mar 22 2012 at 9:19 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
There is a new gbaji? Funny, because I'm not wiping any differently lately.

Front to back?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#37 Mar 22 2012 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
******
49,740 posts
Front, back, side to side.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#38 Mar 22 2012 at 12:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,463 posts
I realize I'm echoing Jophiel's comment earlier, but I too have to wonder why HE is the one that should get the job with benefits and help her out. That sort of expectation would be a red flag for me. Any relationship I've ever had where I had doubts ended up being ultimately wrong for me. I have to say when I met Joph, marriage and kids seemed the most natural feeling in the world, not forced at all (both our school debt included), and this is what I would advise to my own children. Marriage can be a business transaction, but if it feels even the slightest bit wrong or forced, don't do it.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#39 Mar 22 2012 at 12:37 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
I'm a little bit confused anyway--was she not offered a position as a teacher's assistant? You generally won't have them every semester, but it's usually an option for most (until your very last year, when you'll likely be focusing on your dissertation).

Generally speaking, universities love giving out those positions--it actually saves them money, even when they are reducing tuition costs and/or paying the TA, because paying a tenured professor to do the work costs them way more. And that's just for classes that are actually being taught by the professor. If she can pick up work teaching a class (which, granted, probably won't be for a year or two after she stats), it saves them even more.

It's also weird that she's not getting much support. It's generally far easier to afford grad school, especially at private institutions, because the students are essentially recruited partly to increase the university's standing.

What exactly would your son be doing, anyway? It seems odd to me to think that he'd be able to easily get a job there--her options would be far greater.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#40 Mar 22 2012 at 1:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Elinda wrote:
xythex wrote:
Perhaps this was made in jest, but divorce is statistically more likely to result in overall negative outcomes for children.

The overall result of this analysis was that children from divorced families are on "average" somewhat worse off than children who have lived in intact families.

Apparently markup works a little differently than it did 7 years ago...

I assume gbaji meant that the kid would be better off being born to a married couple who later divorce versus being born to a couple that was just living together and later split.


Correct. Obviously, a child is better off if their parents relationship stays intact. But they're better off if their parents were married when the child was born and then later divorced than if their parents had never been married. There's a whole host of social statistics on this for anyone who's really that interested.

Quote:
Still, a pretty stupid statement. What makes a kid born to a couple that divorces more 'legally protected' than being born to a couple that never marries and splits (unless the married couple had a prenup that specifically addresses kids)?


Um... Because marriage automatically makes any child born to the woman a child of the husband by law. If a man wants to remove himself from responsibility for a child of a woman he was married to, the burden is on him to prove that he's not the father. If the couple are not married, the burden is the opposite. The mother must prove that the man is the father. If he chooses to fight it, or leaves the state, or otherwise avoids the matter, he can make this enough of a problem that it never happens.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#41 Mar 22 2012 at 2:09 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Quote:
Linda wrote:


Still, a pretty stupid statement. What makes a kid born to a couple that divorces more 'legally protected' than being born to a couple that never marries and splits (unless the married couple had a prenup that specifically addresses kids)?


Um... Because marriage automatically makes any child born to the woman a child of the husband by law. If a man wants to remove himself from responsibility for a child of a woman he was married to, the burden is on him to prove that he's not the father. If the couple are not married, the burden is the opposite. The mother must prove that the man is the father. If he chooses to fight it, or leaves the state, or otherwise avoids the matter, he can make this enough of a problem that it never happens.

Presumably if they had a child together, married or not, paternity is not the issue. I still don't see how a kid born to a married couple is more legally protected than a kid born to an unmarried couple.

And yes, I'd be interested in seeing all that data that says a kid will stand a better chance at life if the now broken-up couple was once married (all else being equal).
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#42 Mar 22 2012 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Elinda wrote:
Quote:
Linda wrote:


Still, a pretty stupid statement. What makes a kid born to a couple that divorces more 'legally protected' than being born to a couple that never marries and splits (unless the married couple had a prenup that specifically addresses kids)?


Um... Because marriage automatically makes any child born to the woman a child of the husband by law. If a man wants to remove himself from responsibility for a child of a woman he was married to, the burden is on him to prove that he's not the father. If the couple are not married, the burden is the opposite. The mother must prove that the man is the father. If he chooses to fight it, or leaves the state, or otherwise avoids the matter, he can make this enough of a problem that it never happens.

Presumably if they had a child together, married or not, paternity is not the issue. I still don't see how a kid born to a married couple is more legally protected than a kid born to an unmarried couple.

And yes, I'd be interested in seeing all that data that says a kid will stand a better chance at life if the now broken-up couple was once married (all else being equal).


It's because the child isn't. Actually, from a legal standpoint, you are better off if your parents are divorced (at least while you are a dependent). You don't need to claim both parents when you file for student aid (or, at least, I don't know any kids from divorced parents who claim both). This very effectively increases your aid offer by a pretty significant amount, especially if there's a huge disparity in their incomes (in which case you would obviously only claim the less affluent of the two).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#43 Mar 22 2012 at 4:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Elinda wrote:
Presumably if they had a child together, married or not, paternity is not the issue.


You need to put that crack pipe down right now. You honestly don't think that paternity is an issue with children born to unmarried women? What the ****?

Quote:
I still don't see how a kid born to a married couple is more legally protected than a kid born to an unmarried couple.


I just told you how. But apparently, in your world, no children ever grow up with just a mothers name on their birth certificate because the father is never identified. I suppose if you just pretend that something isn't a problem then you're free to blissfully continue life with a ridiculous set of assumptions. Wow...

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 3:26pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#44 Mar 22 2012 at 4:28 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#45 Mar 22 2012 at 5:10 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh
I don't feel like typing them all out myself, so...


This
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#46 Mar 22 2012 at 5:40 PM Rating: Excellent
I like how the situation was changed from a pair of people who may or may not have a kid to a situation where there is a one night stand douche-bag who knocks up a girl and then runs away as quickly as possible. I also find it amusing how you think this has anything to do with marriage laws.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#47 Mar 22 2012 at 5:46 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
And I still fail to see how a kid with an unknown parent is, in any way, less protected by the law.

And if gbaji feels that way, I can't see why *** adoption would be a bad thing. Many of those orphans aren't legally entitled to the identity of their parents at all, if they even have a birth certificate. If missing just one parent is bad, missing two must be incredibly awful. Better to get them two ***** parents than no parents.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#48 Mar 22 2012 at 7:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And I still fail to see how a kid with an unknown parent is, in any way, less protected by the law.


That's an... odd interpretation of what I said. I said that if the parents were married when the child was born, that child would be better protected by the law. The protection is that the law will ensure that he doesn't have an unknown parent in the first place. The law protects the child from the possibility that the father will never support him in any way.

The result of that lack of protection is the child not having a legally recognized father. And certainly we can agree that this puts that child at a pretty hefty disadvantage.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#49 Mar 22 2012 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Which is actually a significant problem with a number of state laws now, because it legally requires women to lie on a legal document.

How so?

Because GASP it's fully possible to give birth to someone else's baby.

[EDIT]

Seriously. You can separate from your husband, end up in a serious relationship with someone new, and be barred from using the new guy's name on the birth certificate.

SO, as far as I can see, the law is doing more to disenfranchise children than actually help them. Because I don't doubt at all that there are more kids (knowingly) born to fathers outside the marriage than there are kids born in marriages whose mothers don't want the father's identity recorded.

[EDIT2]

For the record, most states have procedures in place to remove the father in cases where he is not biologically the sire, but it's an absurd band-aid on an antiquated system. The fact is that no law should exist to presume paternity.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 9:23pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#50 Mar 23 2012 at 7:58 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,087 posts
Technically speaking a marriage of this kind would be fraudulent, and the resulting financial benefit would be the result of a conspiracy to defraud (which is two felonies for the price of one ^^) ( the conspiracy itself & the Grand Larceny)

based soley on info given in OP

Quote:
That's pretty substantial
____________________________
[99WAR,99BLM,99DRK,99BST,99PLD,99MNK,99SMN75RDM49THF45NIN/WHM/DNC
/SAM,,~] Galka

BASTOK:10 SKY: O SEA: O DYNAMIS: O
SIREN srvr
YARP !!!
#51 Mar 23 2012 at 8:01 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Terrifyingspeed wrote:
Technically speaking a marriage of this kind would be fraudulent, and the resulting financial benefit would be the result of a conspiracy to defraud (which is two felonies for the price of one ^^) ( the conspiracy itself & the Grand Larceny)

based soley on info given in OP

Quote:
That's pretty substantial
Why would it be fraudulent?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 75 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (75)