Might want to meet with a mathematician instead of a priest before marriage

[dullard]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Basically I'm saying in the end there is no "financial benefits" longterm. Some short term gains perhaps but if shit goes south....the women always wins. Short term financial benefits aren't a very good reason to get married.

Basically I'm saying that you know nothing about the bolded portion. The woman gets far less than you think. And it isn't the woman who "wins" alimony. It is the person without a job that "wins" alimony. The man could be in the opposite position at the time of the divorce and then the man gets the alimony.

The good reasons to get married is for the true commitment, the societal acceptance, and the legal rights. Plus, there are short term benefits. The chance of a small financial hit far in the future is a bad reason to not get married.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Basically I'm saying in the end there is no "financial benefits" longterm. Some short term gains perhaps but if shit goes south....the women always wins. Short term financial benefits aren't a very good reason to get married.

Basically I'm saying that you know nothing about the bolded portion. The woman gets far less than you think. And it isn't the woman who "wins" alimony. It is the person without a job that "wins" alimony. The man could be in the opposite position at the time of the divorce and then the man gets the alimony.

The good reasons to get married is for the commitment, the societal acceptance, the legal rights. Plus, there are short term benefits. The chance of a small financial hit far in the future is a bad reason to not get married.

Its a 50/50 chance and I feel your grossly underestimated the financial hit. Cars/homes add legal fees can easily be tens of thousands alone w/o alimony or whatever else.

We can wear rings and tell people we are married what does it matter.

 

[acheron]

Originally posted by: Saga

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

As long as your down for the lifetime commitment, then what's the problem with taking advantage of the tax breaks and other benefits married couples receive?

The risk of paying half your salary to support her for the rest of your life in the case she gets fed up with you? With a 50%+ divorce rate your odds of the previous statement being true are the same odds as flipping a coin and calling "tails". Thats a pretty big problem to me.

You fail statistics. 50% of people getting married do not get divorced. Assuming the "half of marriages end in divorce" thing is still accurate, a huge portion of those are second/third/nth marriages from people who have already divorced once, so are obviously more likely to divorce again.

A marries B.
C marries D.
E marries F.
G marries H.

E divorces F.
E marries I.
F marries J.

E and I divorce, and F and J divorce.


Half of those marriages (3/6) ended in divorce. Only 40% of the people involved got divorced (4/10). Keep extrapolating it out beyond just 10 people and the percentage of people getting divorced drops lower.

Yes, it's somewhat common, but it's nowhere near your "coin flip".

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Its a 50/50 chance and I feel your grossly underestimated the financial hit. Cars/homes add legal fees can easily be tens of thousands alone w/o alimony or whatever else.

Take me for example. I got divorced when I was making a great income and she was basically unemployed. After all was said and done, she got a car (worth $10k), A few household decorations, I spent $3k on a lawyer, and I choose to give her $7k to avoid a court case IF I got to keep the entire retirement account. The judge said that was an acceptable deal, and I was divorced. It cost me $20k total. Divorces are expensive, but not nearly as expensive as you think.

If I had gone to court, I likely would not have needed to give her the $7k, but then I would have had ~7k more in lawyer bills so it was a wash.

In the short term, I saved well over $20k in taxes and similar benefits while married. For example, I qualified as low income and got many free grants for school since married people don't count their parents as income when applying for financial aid.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
You can have a lifetime commitment with an SO without being married.

What is a lifetime commitment to a significant other if not a marriage? To be sure, it may not be a marriage in a legal sense and it may not be "blessed" by the religion of the couple's choosing, but if it's truly a life-long commitment then in at least some ways it's a de-facto marriage. That's the whole rationale behind the "common law marriage" provisions that some states have.

ZV

 

[Saga]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Basically I'm saying in the end there is no "financial benefits" longterm. Some short term gains perhaps but if shit goes south....the women always wins. Short term financial benefits aren't a very good reason to get married.

Basically I'm saying that you know nothing about the bolded portion. The woman gets far less than you think. And it isn't the woman who "wins" alimony. It is the person without a job that "wins" alimony. The man could be in the opposite position at the time of the divorce and then the man gets the alimony.

The good reasons to get married is for the true commitment, the societal acceptance, and the legal rights. Plus, there are short term benefits. The chance of a small financial hit far in the future is a bad reason to not get married.

Right, because social acceptance is anywhere on my list of reasons to fuck myself via marriage.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Saga
Right, because social acceptance is anywhere on my list of reasons to fuck myself via marriage.

I gave 3 other reasons. And clearly you don't understand marriage and you don't understand divorce laws if you think it'll fuck yourself.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: leftyman

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Saga

Originally posted by: leftyman
Ive been married 24 years and lived with her for a year or two before that. Its hard, but if you want to make it work it will.

With our current generation the resilience to "make it work" is long gone to self-gratification, selfishness, and just plain greed.

No we just realize there is no advantage or purpose to being married.

Marriage isnt for everyone, and there are plenty of people that enjoy life being single, but to claim there is no advantage or purpose to marriage is wrong.

*edit..or are you just claiming the religious aspect of marriage?

You can have a lifetime commitment with an SO without being married.

As long as your down for the lifetime commitment, then what's the problem with taking advantage of the tax breaks and other benefits married couples receive?

Because I cannot control what the other person will do. Any tax breaks now will mean nothing after she goes through a crisis or psychosis and decides to divorce.

Originally posted by: Saga

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

As long as your down for the lifetime commitment, then what's the problem with taking advantage of the tax breaks and other benefits married couples receive?

The risk of paying half your salary to support her for the rest of your life in the case she gets fed up with you? With a 50%+ divorce rate your odds of the previous statement being true are the same odds as flipping a coin and calling "tails". Thats a pretty big problem to me.

So much for the "lifetime commitment" to a SO to which I was referring. Seeing as it had been claimed that one could enjoy a lifetime commitment without marriage I merely added the benefits of marriage. Arguing against that by talking about the eventuality/inevitability of divorce is a fallacy. Your points are partially valid; if you have assume divorce to be almost a guarantee then sure, marriage seems pointless. I imagine its a bummer to live that way, though.

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: leftyman

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Saga

Originally posted by: leftyman
Ive been married 24 years and lived with her for a year or two before that. Its hard, but if you want to make it work it will.

With our current generation the resilience to "make it work" is long gone to self-gratification, selfishness, and just plain greed.

No we just realize there is no advantage or purpose to being married.

Marriage isnt for everyone, and there are plenty of people that enjoy life being single, but to claim there is no advantage or purpose to marriage is wrong.

*edit..or are you just claiming the religious aspect of marriage?

You can have a lifetime commitment with an SO without being married.

As long as your down for the lifetime commitment, then what's the problem with taking advantage of the tax breaks and other benefits married couples receive?

Because I cannot control what the other person will do. Any tax breaks now will mean nothing after she goes through a crisis or psychosis and decides to divorce.

Originally posted by: Saga

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

As long as your down for the lifetime commitment, then what's the problem with taking advantage of the tax breaks and other benefits married couples receive?

The risk of paying half your salary to support her for the rest of your life in the case she gets fed up with you? With a 50%+ divorce rate your odds of the previous statement being true are the same odds as flipping a coin and calling "tails". Thats a pretty big problem to me.

So much for the "lifetime commitment" to a SO to which I was referring. Seeing as it had been claimed that one could enjoy a lifetime commitment without marriage I merely added the benefits of marriage. Arguing against that by talking about the eventuality/inevitability of divorce is a fallacy. Your points are partially valid; if you have assume divorce to be almost a guarantee then sure, marriage seems pointless. I imagine its a bummer to live that way, though.

:thumbsup:

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: mugs

Statements with humour or affection were given positive scores, while those with defensiveness or anger were given negative ones. The resulting scores were used to identify whether the relationship was likely to stand the test of time.

Seems to come down to whether or not you actually like each other. Brilliant!

Not exactly. The book "Blink" discusses this study at length. It essentially comes down to a number of factors, almost all of which have nothing to do with "liking" the other person. It has a lot more to do with how you react to stressful situations, how you respond to criticism, and how you treat your partner when things are stressful. We have no problem being nice to each other (as humans) when things are going smoothly, but when the shit hits the fan your marriage basically comes down to how well you can communicate to the other person.

It's actually an amazing study. Read up on it!

 

[Saga]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Saga
Right, because social acceptance is anywhere on my list of reasons to fuck myself via marriage.

I gave 3 other reasons. And clearly you don't understand marriage and you don't understand divorce laws if you think it'll fuck yourself.

I work with 5 divorced men. In my state, the woman automatically gets alimony if the man's pay exceeds her to match her "standard of living". Alimony has no statutory limit. The court can order alimony for a fixed length of time, or for an indefinite period. Even when the court orders alimony for a fixed length of time, the order can be modified to extend alimony for additional time, or for an indefinite period.

One of the guys I'm working with has been paying $3,000 a month for approximately 11 years to his ex-wife who is now re-married. They had no children. The $3000 a month he pays is to "maintain the standard of living". IE, it's the difference between what they made combined and what she's making now at her full-time job. Even though she is re-married and they have no children, the guy has had to go two battle with her TWICE for extended alimony. The first was for four years, then she brought him to court and they extended it for 5, then she brought him to court AGAIN and they extended it for another 5. That is 14 years of this guys life practically lost while he works to support her alimony check with his expendable income. He had to move back in with his parents simply to be able to afford to pay this bitch to live off him - and odds are in a few years he'll be in court AGAIN for yet ANOTHER extended alimony hearing because she doesn't make as much money as him. At this point it's in this guy's best interest to quit his job and work at burger king for a few years just to have to stop paying alimony.

Wanna know what law nailed him? The following:

The court may award alimony for an indefinite period, if the court finds that: (1) due to age, illness, infirmity, or disability, the party seeking alimony cannot reasonably be expected to make substantial progress toward becoming self-supporting; or (2) even after the party seeking alimony will have made as much progress toward becoming self-supporting as can reasonably be expected, the respective standards of living of the parties will be unconscionably disparate.

That is one of these five guys. They all have their own stories. They all have their own situations. Some have kids, some don't. Some the partner re-married, some they didn't. Some the partner worked, some they didn't. I simply gave you the worst of the five for you to chew on since one guy who had no kids and had his fucking ex-wife re-marry should NEVER spend 15+ years of his life paying one third of his income to someone else to support their "standard of living".

Working with these divorcees and seeing the reality of the situation in the state I live in has led me to the mindset I have now. The reality is there is NO benefit that outweighs all the risks of marriage where I live. NONE. PERIOD.

 

[TheVrolok]

.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Basically I'm saying in the end there is no "financial benefits" longterm. Some short term gains perhaps but if shit goes south....the women always wins. Short term financial benefits aren't a very good reason to get married.

Basically I'm saying that you know nothing about the bolded portion. The woman gets far less than you think. And it isn't the woman who "wins" alimony. It is the person without a job that "wins" alimony. The man could be in the opposite position at the time of the divorce and then the man gets the alimony.

The good reasons to get married is for the commitment, the societal acceptance, the legal rights. Plus, there are short term benefits. The chance of a small financial hit far in the future is a bad reason to not get married.

Its a 50/50 chance and I feel your grossly underestimated the financial hit. Cars/homes add legal fees can easily be tens of thousands alone w/o alimony or whatever else.

We can wear rings and tell people we are married what does it matter.

your whole underlying assumption is that you *WILL* get divorced. people need to figure out what they really want and take their time - marriage isn't just a statistical event like drawing a marble out of a bag.

 

[Saga]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

your whole underlying assumption is that you *WILL* get divorced. people need to figure out what they really want and take their time - marriage isn't just a statistical event like drawing a marble out of a bag.

Two things:

1) You are assuming you can expect truth, morality, and most importantly RATIONALITY from a woman. That is just downright absolutely ignorant.

2) See my post two up, please.

 

[meltdown75]

I wonder if "alimony" in French is "l'alimone".

If it was, that'd be pretty cool.

 

[leftyman]

Originally posted by: Saga

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

your whole underlying assumption is that you *WILL* get divorced. people need to figure out what they really want and take their time - marriage isn't just a statistical event like drawing a marble out of a bag.

Two things:

1) You are assuming you can expect truth, morality, and most importantly RATIONALITY from a woman. That is just downright absolutely ignorant.

2) See my post two up, please.

after reading your hostility towards women you probably are better off not marrying.

but again, I have been married 24 years to a woman that is truthful has morals and is usually rational and more often then not stops me from doing something boneheaded.

its a shame all the women in your life have lead you to feel this way towards them.

 

[Saga]

Originally posted by: leftyman

after reading your hostility towards women you probably are better off not marrying.

but again, I have been married 24 years to a woman that is truthful has morals and is usually rational and more often then not stops me from doing something boneheaded.

its a shame all the women in your life has lead you to feel this towards them.

You know what worries me? There is plain logic in everything you just typed, and sitting back and thinking about it I absolutely cannot put my finger on why I feel so strongly about this. Ever since I was 14 years old I've maintained stable, long term (see: 1.5+ years) relationships, seldom going single for more than a three month block of time. I've been with my current girlfriend, who I actually fondly refer to as "the wife" to everyone else, for three years now, and we've lived together for two and a half.

I think my hostility boils down to religion. I am not religious, and she is. However, we simply don't bring it up and don't talk about it. Never have. I may question some of her ideologies but I've never had problems with her morals, I've never insulted her religion, and she's never gone out of her way to try and convert me. We maintain a very solid, loving, and strong mental and physical relationship.

But I have absolutely no intention of getting married anytime in the near future. I'm not saying my mind may change, I may find the need to have a few kids and settle down in one place, but at this point in my life I do a lot of travel and I enjoy it. I have many toys (motorcycle, toy-truck that does a quarter mile in sub 11-seconds and makes Corvettes cry, computer/server room that most would die for) and part of me feels I worry about the more "responsible" aspects of being an adult, such as bearing children into this world, without the ability to maintain my own standard of living comfortably; which terrifies me. It's quite possibly I'm still too emotionally immature to deal with it, or it's alternately possible I may just never come around to what others have. Either way, I do not believe my ways to be set in stone.

 

[Rachael]

What this article is saying really just seems to come down to the defensiveness or anger between the two individuals at the beginning of a relationship being a good predictor of continued defensiveness and anger (which we can assume would lead to dissatisfaction with the marriage and therefore divorce). It's a pretty common sense thing that people will tend to interact with each other in a consistent way, and a couple whose interactions are marked by unpleasant or argumentative behavior when in the manufactured stressful situation of the study will usually do worse down the road when actual stressful situations inevitably come up. So people who treat their partner kindly and deal with stressful situations in a generally optimistic manner fare better in marriage? Don't really need a study to tell me that one!

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: leftyman
Ive been married 24 years and lived with her for a year or two before that. Its hard, but if you want to make it work it will.

I hate the idea of "making it work" if you have to make it work then whats the pleasure in it? My wife and I don't work at it at all.. we dated for 5 years and never had problems with each other and said yep we don't have to work at this lets get married. Marriage isn't for everyone anyway, even though society seems to make people think they have to be.

 

[leftyman]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: leftyman
Ive been married 24 years and lived with her for a year or two before that. Its hard, but if you want to make it work it will.

I hate the idea of "making it work" if you have to make it work then whats the pleasure in it? My wife and I don't work at it at all.. we dated for 5 years and never had problems with each other and said yep we don't have to work at this lets get married. Marriage isn't for everyone anyway, even though society seems to make people think they have to be.

then you are extremely lucky or havent hit any bumps in the road yet.

how long have you been married?

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Saga
Snip

Ouch.

Wasn't there a couple of threads here just after the new year discussing how bad alimony can be?

Didn't some dude get made unemployed (due to the shit economy), went to court to get the alimony reduced and basically ended up paying more despite having no income.

The general consensus was that it was just wrong since he had been supporting her for years because she couldn't be bothered to get a job

 

[Saga]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb

Ouch.

Wasn't there a couple of threads here just after the new year discussing how bad alimony can be?

Didn't some dude get made unemployed (due to the shit economy), went to court to get the alimony reduced and basically ended up paying more despite having no income.

The general consensus was that it was just wrong since he had been supporting her for years because she couldn't be bothered to get a job

Which is absolutely what happens in the majority (if not all) of the cases I've ever personally seen/been privy to. If someone is handing you a lifestyle on a silver platter, NOBODY in their right mind is going to put forth a lot of extra effort to fix it when they can live the lazy American welfare dream, where the welfare is a double-whammy of ex-husband supporting your lazy ass, and ex-husband suffering because of your whims.

 

[yhelothar]

I learned about this guy from my psychology professor a year ago.
It basically boils down to compromise and tolerance for each other's differences.
If you can't settle differences without getting angry at each other, the relationship ain't gonna work out, period.
Very interesting study by this man. He basically learned this from observing 700 couples for 12years. Through this, he debunked many commen convetions and common wisdoms for successful relationships. There actually is little correlation between the success of a relationship and two people merely having chemistry, or common interests. Neither is it to openly communicate about everything. The only thing that does matter is that the couple acknowledges each others differences and shows respect to them.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Basically I'm saying in the end there is no "financial benefits" longterm. Some short term gains perhaps but if shit goes south....the women always wins. Short term financial benefits aren't a very good reason to get married.

Basically I'm saying that you know nothing about the bolded portion. The woman gets far less than you think. And it isn't the woman who "wins" alimony. It is the person without a job that "wins" alimony. The man could be in the opposite position at the time of the divorce and then the man gets the alimony.

The good reasons to get married is for the commitment, the societal acceptance, the legal rights. Plus, there are short term benefits. The chance of a small financial hit far in the future is a bad reason to not get married.

Its a 50/50 chance and I feel your grossly underestimated the financial hit. Cars/homes add legal fees can easily be tens of thousands alone w/o alimony or whatever else.

We can wear rings and tell people we are married what does it matter.

your whole underlying assumption is that you *WILL* get divorced. people need to figure out what they really want and take their time - marriage isn't just a statistical event like drawing a marble out of a bag.

No my assumption is that I am only ever in control of my commitment to her and not her commitment to me.

 

[dawheat]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Basically I'm saying in the end there is no "financial benefits" longterm. Some short term gains perhaps but if shit goes south....the women always wins. Short term financial benefits aren't a very good reason to get married.

Basically I'm saying that you know nothing about the bolded portion. The woman gets far less than you think. And it isn't the woman who "wins" alimony. It is the person without a job that "wins" alimony. The man could be in the opposite position at the time of the divorce and then the man gets the alimony.

The good reasons to get married is for the commitment, the societal acceptance, the legal rights. Plus, there are short term benefits. The chance of a small financial hit far in the future is a bad reason to not get married.

Its a 50/50 chance and I feel your grossly underestimated the financial hit. Cars/homes add legal fees can easily be tens of thousands alone w/o alimony or whatever else.

We can wear rings and tell people we are married what does it matter.

your whole underlying assumption is that you *WILL* get divorced. people need to figure out what they really want and take their time - marriage isn't just a statistical event like drawing a marble out of a bag.

No my assumption is that I am only ever in control of my commitment to her and not her commitment to me.

A "lifelong committment" as long as it doesn't put you at risk or potentially cost you a lot. Not the kind of "lifelong commitment" I want to have.

I do think far too many people get married - with the wrong expectations or simply unprepared. However IMO getting married means you're willing to trust the other person with everything you have, not even just half.

If people can't commit to a person at that level, not being married sounds like the right option.