🔒 Locked

Marriage Abolition In Favor of Civil Unions: A Discussion

Started by neurokaotix May 24, 2004 at 4:00 PM 33 replies 3.6k views

Original Post

May 24, 2004 at 4:00 PM

First I would like to state my stance, I am completely against marriage in the state of California as it currently stands. There is absolutely no sense to many of it's law-enforced institutions and it basically serves to screw men over. What benefits does marriage hold for the American male who has a steady job? I can think of none. Especially with things like alimony. Let's talk about alimony for a second. What is alimony? It is defined as "An amount given to one spouse to another while they are separated." If a man is supporting his wife for seven years and gets divorced he must pay for his wife a certain amount of money for a certain number of years. I believe this is the case involving couples where one person worked and the other didn't, but it may just be that one pays the other regardless. I also know that it isn't just that the man pays the woman. It sometimes will happen the other way around, but it is quite rare. So in short, alimony is paying someone to sit on their ass for sitting on their ass for whatever amount of time they were married. I would like to note that I agree with child support, so don't think I'm arguing against that. Personally, I see no benefits with being married that I don't see with just living with the person you love. Getting married makes it all quite public and makes you applicable to laws in place that will ultimately just screw your life up. There is a solution. Civil Unions my friends. Against gay marriage? NO PROBLEM. Civil unions will not be founded in religion, which current marriages should not be anyway since it's mixing the government with religion. But how does this solve the alimony problem, you ask? Well, here is how it can work: 1. Woman files for divorce 2. Woman has 30-45 days to get a job 3. A month to a month and a half later, if she hasn't found her ass a job, tough luck. It doesn't take more than a month to find some kind of job What if she has a job though? Well then she doesn't need to do the 30-45 days thing she can leave right now, no problem. Child support still applies. Gay unions will be ok. Afterall, no where in the bible does it say that a Civil Union is between a man and a woman. Not that the government should be giving a rat's ass what the bible says... but we know how good we are at following the rules this country was founded on. Down with marriage. Bring on civil unions. GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF YOUR BEDROOM (line stolen from washington post © ® ™ ) What say ye? MindEngine Development | E-Commerce Business Architecture [edited by - neurokaotix on May 24, 2004 5:01:39 PM]

23yrold3yrold

May 24, 2004 at 4:03 PM

I already tried selling this to the pro-gay-marriage bunch; good luck with that.

I''m for marriage. As in, lifetime commitment. Your little argument assumes divorce from the outset.

BTW, what''s different about "marriage in the state of California as it currently stands" as opposed to anywhere else?

Jesus saves ... the rest of you take damage.
"A page of history is worth a volume of logic." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

felisandria

May 24, 2004 at 4:03 PM

Assuming that a wife, even a stay at home one, does nothing is entirely unfair. My mother worked just as hard as my father throughout my childhood, she just wasn''t paid for it. Add to that the fact that women don''t advance along their career lines and therefore miss out on higher salaries while being a stay at home wife or mother, and you see what alimony is there for.

-fel

Conner McCloud

May 24, 2004 at 4:14 PM

I''m pretty sure California does not require men to pay alimony. If the woman made more money than the man, then most states require she pay alimony. If both made equal money, then there is no alimony.

CM

neurokaotix

May 24, 2004 at 4:16 PM

quote:
Original post by Conner McCloud
I''m pretty sure California does not require men to pay alimony. If the woman made more money than the man, then most states require she pay alimony. If both made equal money, then there is no alimony.

CM

I thought thats what I said.

MindEngine Development | E-Commerce Business Architecture

neurokaotix

May 24, 2004 at 4:16 PM

quote:
Original post by 23yrold3yrold
I already tried selling this to the pro-gay-marriage bunch; good luck with that.

I''m for marriage. As in, lifetime commitment. Your little argument assumes divorce from the outset.

BTW, what''s different about "marriage in the state of California as it currently stands" as opposed to anywhere else?

Jesus saves ... the rest of you take damage.
"A page of history is worth a volume of logic." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

I assume divorce as the outcome because 85% of marriages out here end up that way. Also marriage in the state of CA, as I understand it, has some very messed up laws attached to it. But perhaps this is the way it is all around the country.

MindEngine Development | E-Commerce Business Architecture

Oluseyi

May 24, 2004 at 4:17 PM

The only part of your argument I agree with is that government should recognize civil union, not marriage - leaving marriage to be defined by religion and thus side-stepping the entire legal tangle over gay marriage. Civil union would simply be a contractual agreement to share various responsibilities relating to property, investments and care/upkeep, and rewarding partners with equity in benefits (such as coverage under health insurance), and would be limited to exclusive binary situations. Persons seeking to get married would still do so, but instead of signing the "marriage license" at the ceremony, they would sign the contract of "civil union."

Of course, the pro-gay marriage bunch aren''t interested in this. For them the symbolism of having an "equal footing" with heterosexuals is part of the agenda, and they have no interest in providing an escape for government.

In short, it ain''t happening, Suzy.

neurokaotix

May 24, 2004 at 4:19 PM

quote:
Original post by felisandria
Assuming that a wife, even a stay at home one, does nothing is entirely unfair. My mother worked just as hard as my father throughout my childhood, she just wasn''t paid for it. Add to that the fact that women don''t advance along their career lines and therefore miss out on higher salaries while being a stay at home wife or mother, and you see what alimony is there for.

-fel

If a woman stays at home all day, whether taking care of a child or just keeping the house clean, she should not be entitled to free money after the marriage. Not if she is fully capable of working. The person (male or female) who made the most money should NOT have to pay the other person. Heck, even if the other person CAN''T work then they to apply for disabilities or welfare.

MindEngine Development | E-Commerce Business Architecture

23yrold3yrold

May 24, 2004 at 4:23 PM

quote:
Original post by neurokaotix
If a woman stays at home all day, whether taking care of a child or just keeping the house clean, she should not be entitled to free money after the marriage. Not if she is fully capable of working. The person (male or female) who made the most money should NOT have to pay the other person. Heck, even if the other person CAN''T work then they to apply for disabilities or welfare.

What kind of money would she have been earning if she had devoted that time in the home to pursuing a career? What kind of money can she expect to earn from whatever job she can get with "housewife" as her work experience?

Jesus saves ... the rest of you take damage.
"A page of history is worth a volume of logic." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

felisandria

May 24, 2004 at 4:23 PM

As previously noted, it''s not "free money". It''s acceptance of the fact that she was an unsalaried employee of her husband in the case of taking care of the children (in which case she should be allowed to keep her "job" as she''s keeping their kids), and an acceptance of the fact that she gave up a potential career and the experience and advancements that would have gone along with it in either a child-having or not-child-having case, and can''t get those years back.

-fel

neurokaotix

May 24, 2004 at 4:25 PM

quote:
Original post by 23yrold3yrold
quote:
Original post by neurokaotix
If a woman stays at home all day, whether taking care of a child or just keeping the house clean, she should not be entitled to free money after the marriage. Not if she is fully capable of working. The person (male or female) who made the most money should NOT have to pay the other person. Heck, even if the other person CAN''T work then they to apply for disabilities or welfare.

What kind of money would she have been earning if she had devoted that time in the home to pursuing a career? What kind of money can she expect to earn from whatever job she can get with "housewife" as her work experience?

Jesus saves ... the rest of you take damage.
"A page of history is worth a volume of logic." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

So you think of marriage as a sort of "holding back" for women? Fine, dont get married then. Problem solved, see?

No "reparations" needed.

MindEngine Development | E-Commerce Business Architecture

neurokaotix

May 24, 2004 at 4:27 PM

quote:
Original post by felisandria
As previously noted, it''s not "free money". It''s acceptance of the fact that she was an unsalaried employee of her husband in the case of taking care of the children (in which case she should be allowed to keep her "job" as she''s keeping their kids), and an acceptance of the fact that she gave up a potential career and the experience and advancements that would have gone along with it in either a child-having or not-child-having case, and can''t get those years back.

-fel

Being a stay at home mom doesn''t make you an employee of the man. MARRIAGE IS A TEAM. It''s not the woman being subsidized by the man to do his bidding. It''s a co-dependency. If he''s putting food on the table, she needs to be keeping the table clean. What is he supposed to do both?

MindEngine Development | E-Commerce Business Architecture

felisandria

May 24, 2004 at 4:35 PM

Right. Marriage IS a team, and in a perfect world there would be no need for alimony as both would be in the situation for life (him providing, her taking care of the household).

But, reality is not like that. Reality sometimes includes a woman spending a decade cleaning up after him, cooking for him, taking care of the kids, and then him going after a younger filly, leaving her with 10 years of nothing to show for it. She has no experience, no career, no retirement, and she''s still supposed to be the caretaker of the children. Is it really fair for a guy to ask a woman to spend 10 years looking after his household affairs, then be willing to be dropped and go try to provide for herself at a minimum wage job with nothing to show for the years she spent?

I would agree that in cases like mine, I shouldn''t get alimony. I make a good bit more than my husband does, and my career hasn''t suffered due to us being married at all. But, that''s because I''ve chosen, so far at least, career over children, and had I chosen in the other direction I would feel quite gypped if I gave up my career to take care of our children, then was left in the cold with no experience to provide for myself in the way I would have been able to had I spent those years on my career.

Granted I don''t believe in divorce as an option either, but I do believe that there is quite a bit of value provided by a housewife.

-fel

23yrold3yrold

May 24, 2004 at 4:36 PM

quote:
Original post by neurokaotix
So you think of marriage as a sort of "holding back" for women?

No, I think of divorce as (among other things) financially crippling. Hence, alimony. It''s really very simple. Now, I''m not really a big fan of alimony either, but I''m hardly going to argue that it''s a bad idea. So the man used to support her. So he still does to a lesser extent. What''s the problem?

Jesus saves ... the rest of you take damage.
"A page of history is worth a volume of logic." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

Conner McCloud

May 24, 2004 at 4:36 PM

quote:
Original post by neurokaotix
quote:
Original post by felisandria
Assuming that a wife, even a stay at home one, does nothing is entirely unfair. My mother worked just as hard as my father throughout my childhood, she just wasn''t paid for it. Add to that the fact that women don''t advance along their career lines and therefore miss out on higher salaries while being a stay at home wife or mother, and you see what alimony is there for.

-fel

If a woman stays at home all day, whether taking care of a child or just keeping the house clean, she should not be entitled to free money after the marriage. Not if she is fully capable of working. The person (male or female) who made the most money should NOT have to pay the other person. Heck, even if the other person CAN''T work then they to apply for disabilities or welfare.

In cases like this, its best to consider the extreme.

A man decides to marry his high school beau rather than go to college. He stays home and keeps the house clean, cooks dinner, etc. His wife uses the time he frees up for her to get a well paying job. Being unemployed, he has no need for a car. He has no credit of his own, its all in his wife''s name.

Ten years later, they divorce. She''s a cheating whore, and leave him for a partner at her law firm. This man has no marketable skills except housework, which is hardly a promising career. He needs to find a place to live, a job, a car, health insurance, car insurance, etc. All with no education and no credit. And all through no fault of his own.

*that* is what alimony is designed to fix. Its not a way to screw over men, its a way to prevent divorce from ruining the life of somebody naive enough to expect the marriage to last.

CM

Eelco

May 24, 2004 at 5:00 PM

quote:

Of course, the pro-gay marriage bunch aren''t interested in this. For them the symbolism of having an "equal footing" with heterosexuals is part of the agenda, and they have no interest in providing an escape for government.

contrary to what you want to believe, youd make atleast 90% of all gay people happy with that. so whats stopping you from supporting it?

but on a sidenote, besides your aversion to gays, whats up with your aversion to "equal footing". because, i mean, yeah, thats so 70s. :S

neurokaotix

May 24, 2004 at 5:07 PM

Because gay people can't have marriage. It's a religous thing only right now. The bible says two men or two woman can't be married. Therefore, they can't be married. No ifs ands ors about it.

edit: Are you going to change religion so two boys can have their little wedding?

MindEngine Development | E-Commerce Business Architecture

[edited by - neurokaotix on May 24, 2004 6:07:54 PM]

23yrold3yrold

May 24, 2004 at 5:14 PM

quote:
Original post by neurokaotix
edit: Are you going to change religion so two boys can have their little wedding?

That''s certianly what a lot of homosexuals have tried to do. The church was under quite a bit of pressure (at least in Canada) for a while there. The last time civil unions were brought up here, no one would hear of the idea. Has that changed now?

Jesus saves ... the rest of you take damage.
"A page of history is worth a volume of logic." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

Lohrno

May 24, 2004 at 5:15 PM

Marriage is the department of Religion, and thus doesn''t have much to do with government. Civil Unions are the department of the government, knowing how to handle people who live together for a long time. The government shouldn''t be involved in Marriage, but in the civil unions produced by them because of the spirit of the first ammendment. (It says congress, but the government should have no say in Religions.) So yes everywhere we should drop Marriage anyway from the books, and replace it with civil unions.

They should also make sure it''s clear that CUs are intended for citizens/residents. Cows do not pay taxes, so the government can''t unite a man and his cow. It wouldn''t even matter if they could. It doesn''t affect the government in any way, so there is no point in doing anything about it. We should also remove ''god'' from the pledge and dollar bills. It''s endorsing monotheistic religions.

-=Lohrno

Eelco

May 24, 2004 at 5:16 PM

quote:

Because gay people can''t have marriage. It''s a religous thing only right now. The bible says two men or two woman can''t be married. Therefore, they can''t be married. No ifs ands ors about it.

edit: Are you going to change religion so two boys can have their little wedding?

personaly i wouldnt give a damn what they get, as long as its something. you get the pleasure of making a name up. and oh yes one thingo: it should provide the same legal rights, ALL of them, that hetrosexuals get.

edit: are you going to change the constitution so that the government should actually give a damn about your moldy book?

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.