Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nidhoggr)
    People are more likely now more than ever to get divorced (50% divorce rate), and the man pretty much always gets screwed.

    In this day age, the degree of faith marriage deserves is about the same degree of faith you'd give to a bet made on the outcome of a football match - worse even.

    Imagine Man U are playing Chelsea, and your friend proposes a bet on who will win. You think Man U, she thinks Chelsea, but rules of the bet are if Man U win you keep the money you bet but dont get any of the money your friend bet, and if Chelsea win your friend keeps her money and gets half of your money.

    Who in their right mind would take that bet?......Exactly, no one, so why do men still get married?
    There are huge advantages to marriage that are economic, scientific etc etc.

    Married men live longer.

    Marriage is a contract to bring up a family and most marriages do last while the children are young. Children from married families, tend to do far better.

    Marriage is a good "ground zero" upon to get a joint mortgage (which more and more people need) and also to start up a joint business enterprise (there are significant tax advantages if you can split the profits between you and your wide (take Philip Green :

    https://www.theguardian.com/business...ration-arcadia

    Tina, who since 2004 has been the legal owner of BHS – and the Arcadia Group, which includes Topshop, Miss Selfridge and Dorothy Perkins – is based in Monaco. The handover of BHS to Green’s wife was completed just before the family paid themselves £1.2bn in dividends from Arcadia in 2005, the biggest pay cheque in British corporate history, equivalent to four times the group’s then profits.

    Try doing that with a random person you meet down the night club.. LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
    )

    Anyone who says both men and women do not gain loads out of marriage is obviously a bit in cloud cockoo land.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nidhoggr)
    brb studying law for three years and then doing postgrad law degree with specialism in marital law so I can be qualified to make this thread :rolleyes:
    You do realise that we can access previous posts you make, right?

    Thought you were doing investment banking?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Meet a man with a house and good job. Marry, have kids. Hop on blokes **** from work... take house and 70% of assets and the kids.

    Easy game
    More likely that the man is the adulterer, though...

    http://www.statisticbrain.com/infidelity-statistics/
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think marriage exists any more.

    A marriage used to be a contract, like a phone contract, which could not be cancelled or at least could only be cancelled with the side wanting the cancellation paying large penalties.

    Today, marriage can be broken at any time, and for any reason, and with no special penalty for whoever decided to break it. It is not a contract. It is merely a public statement that two people intend to stay together, but make no actual binding commitment to do so.

    So what is called marriage today is not about two people making a lifelong commitment to start a family, it is just about division of property when short term relationships collapse. I would agree that the division of property it imposes is generally much worse than men would get if they either competitively bargained a contract with their partner or just made no contract at all. But even calling it marriage is deeply misleading.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jd_uk)
    Yep. Seen some terrible things happen to guys with kids, even when the woman has been in the wrong/cheated etc, she has got the better deal. The law is completely wrong and has to change. I think it will when people realise how feminism etc has gone way too far, but it is 10 years off still.

    Edit...to those women who see things like this and disagree by default - imagine it happening to your male relatives...brothers, future sons etc. Women get a very easy deal in this world in many areas but feminists only ever want to shout about the things which are difficult for them.
    Im sure that if you find and marry a trustworthy good woman, this wouldnt happen even if you split up and divorce. Most good women dont do these type of things when they get divorced. Some of them earn they're own money and probably wont need too much of our money, or they might only take a few amounts of money.
    I think that if you dont want to get divorced, you have to make an effort on making things work, and be happy with yourself and your family. It is possible to not get divorced.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    There are huge advantages to marriage that are economic, scientific etc etc.

    Married men live longer.

    Marriage is a contract to bring up a family and most marriages do last while the children are young. Children from married families, tend to do far better.

    Marriage is a good "ground zero" upon to get a joint mortgage (which more and more people need) and also to start up a joint business enterprise (there are significant tax advantages if you can split the profits between you and your wide (take Philip Green :

    https://www.theguardian.com/business...ration-arcadia

    Tina, who since 2004 has been the legal owner of BHS – and the Arcadia Group, which includes Topshop, Miss Selfridge and Dorothy Perkins – is based in Monaco. The handover of BHS to Green’s wife was completed just before the family paid themselves £1.2bn in dividends from Arcadia in 2005, the biggest pay cheque in British corporate history, equivalent to four times the group’s then profits.

    Try doing that with a random person you meet down the night club.. LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
    )

    Anyone who says both men and women do not gain loads out of marriage is obviously a bit in cloud cockoo land.
    I don't think anyone doubts that both men and women benefit from being in a long term, trusting relationship. The question is what does the legal institution of marriage add to that.

    Right now, its principal effect is to give the woman a claim to a large of money and other property originally owned by the man that she would not otherwise have.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    What law do you think has to change specifically?

    In terms of spousal maintenance, the law has been changed - to men's benefit. It used to be that only husbands could be ordered to pay; now the highest-earning partner can be regardless of gender.
    Cancellation penalties should be paid by the party that either broke or chose to cancel the contract.

    I would also like to see

    1. what both parties require from the contract

    and

    2. in what circumstances you can cancel it

    and

    3. exactly how liable each party is for failing to provide the other's requirements, or cancelling the contract

    more flexible and better explained in the contract. "One-size-fits-all" marriage does not make sense. A marriage contract for two people marrying with the plan to have a family of four children and die together aged 95 in a cottage by the sea should not look the same as a marriage contract for two people who want to have sex with each other semi-exclusively for five years and see what happens. The "one-size-fits-all" marriage has been skewed much too far in favour of the second set-up which is not socially healthy. I don't want to stop people doing this, but I don't think their preferences should dominate everyone else's preferences.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I don't think anyone doubts that both men and women benefit from being in a long term, trusting relationship. The question is what does the legal institution of marriage add to that.

    Right now, its principal effect is to give the woman a claim to a large of money and other property originally owned by the man that she would not otherwise have.
    There is no trust if one partner gives up a lot to have the other partners children but that other partner is not telling society at large that they are equal partners (including economically) in this relationship.

    I would not trust giving 50% of my business to some floozy I met down a night club. I'd give it to my wife.

    You're just being daft although, as a believer in marriage, I should be trying to put others off it, as clearly married people, do better then single people (on a host of economic scales). So be my guest, stay single or get a divorce, it just makes me relatively better off..

    I see your point, if a 60+ millionaire marries a 20+ model, why does he bother?
    I'd say that is a different argument to the main thesis concerning marriage.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    There is no trust if one partner gives up a lot to have the other partners children but that other partner is not telling society at large that they are equal partners (including economically) in this relationship.

    I would not trust giving 50% of my business to some floozy I met down a night club. I'd give it to my wife.

    You're just being daft although, as a believer in marriage, I should be trying to put others off it, as clearly married people, do better then single people (on a host of economic scales). So be my guest, stay single or get a divorce, it just makes me relatively better off..
    Again, the choice isn't between a woman I've known for 5 years and love and a floozy at a nightclub. The choice is between a woman I've known for 5 years and love and have married, and a woman I've known for 5 years and love and have not married. You've pointed out a lot of advantages of trusting people I've known for a long time and got on well with in that time, not a lot of advantages for marrying such people.

    I have male friends I have known for 15+ years whom I would trust with my money before any non-related woman I have ever known but I am not going to marry them!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Some sad views on marriage from some of the contributors to this thread. Who seem not to consider that some of the 50% divorce rate is due to one of the married person's behaviour and the other one being genuinely innocent. Also, that 50% of marriages are 'till death us do part'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Again, the choice isn't between a woman I've known for 5 years and love and a floozy at a nightclub. The choice is between a woman I've known for 5 years and love and have married, and a woman I've known for 5 years and love and have not married. You've pointed out a lot of advantages of trusting people I've known for a long time and got on well with in that time, not a lot of advantages for marrying such people.

    I have male friends I have known for 15+ years whom I would trust with my money before any non-related woman I have ever known but I am not going to marry them!
    Because you would be scum. You would be taking way more from her than you would be giving. Honestly I think you would be a shiiit for doing that to her. Then perhaps leaving at any point (as marriages also break up). Think about it, if you walk away she might get nothing, yet she has stayed at home to look after the babies - damaging her career or chance of a second relationship. A man who does not marry after5 years (with baby), is an idiot and or scum.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Because you would be scum. You would be taking way more from her than you would be giving. Honestly I think you would be a shiiit for doing that to her. Then perhaps leaving at any point (as marriages also break up).
    As things stand, if I marry a woman, she could leave at any point (e.g. she could cheat on me) and take a lot of my stuff and any children we have. This is not fair.

    If I don't marry a woman and she chooses to live with and be economically dependent on me, I could leave at any point (e.g. I could cheat on her) and keep all my stuff but not take her stuff and at least dispute custody of the children. This is probably also unfair but is at least less unfair than the first deal. In any case, it is more favourable to me, so more in my interest; you were arguing marriage was more in my interest.

    The ideal set-up is for me to be able to sign a contract with a woman whereby I get punished for not meeting her needs and she gets punished for not meeting my needs. But there exists no such contract, and I don't believe such a contract is legally possible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    As things stand, if I marry a woman, she could leave at any point (e.g. she could cheat on me) and take a lot of my stuff and any children we have. This is not fair.

    If I don't marry a woman and she chooses to live with and be economically dependent on me, I could leave at any point (e.g. I could cheat on her) and keep all my stuff but not take her stuff and at least dispute custody of the children. This is probably also unfair but is at least less unfair than the first deal. In any case, it is more favourable to me, so more in my interest; you were arguing marriage was more in my interest.

    The ideal set-up is for me to be able to sign a contract with a woman whereby I get punished for not meeting her needs and she gets punished for not meeting my needs. But there exists no such contract, and I don't believe such a contract is legally possible.
    go ahead stay single in a long term relationship with kids. It would make you scum in my book, but also doomed to fail in life, so I guess that is karma.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I don't think anyone doubts that both men and women benefit from being in a long term, trusting relationship. The question is what does the legal institution of marriage add to that.

    Right now, its principal effect is to give the woman a claim to a large of money and other property originally owned by the man that she would not otherwise have.
    Do you plan on having children?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shumaya)
    Do you plan on having children?
    Yes.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Just because you are a socially awkward brat with no chance of getting married, doesn't mean everyone else is
    • Section Leader
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    As a sign of commitment, tax benefits, legal benefits, can't begin to describe how difficult it was for my mum to sort things out when dad died because they weren't married ( if they had been everything would have been switched over no problem instead of 9 year old me getting everything).
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Yes.
    I've just seen your post above. It's convinced me to never have children with someone outside of marriage so thank you
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shumaya)
    I've just seen your post above. It's convinced me to never have children with someone outside of marriage so thank you
    This one?

    As things stand, if I marry a woman, she could leave at any point (e.g. she could cheat on me) and take a lot of my stuff and any children we have. This is not fair.

    If I don't marry a woman and she chooses to live with and be economically dependent on me, I could leave at any point (e.g. I could cheat on her) and keep all my stuff but not take her stuff and at least dispute custody of the children. This is probably also unfair but is at least less unfair than the first deal. In any case, it is more favourable to me, so more in my interest; you were arguing marriage was more in my interest.
    I don't blame you! But see it from my point of view - the deal a girl is offering me with marriage is even worse than the deal I am offering a girl with non-marriage. A deal you consider totally unacceptable.

    It would be much better -

    for me to be able to sign a contract with a woman whereby I get punished for not meeting her needs and she gets punished for not meeting my needs
    - don't you agree?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    who doesn't want to include the goverment when you love someone so much?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.