- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rogan and Shapiro agree: get government out of marriage
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:21 pm to CivilTiger83
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:21 pm to CivilTiger83
quote:
You are not married are you?
I am happily married to a great woman who gave me three beautiful kids.
quote:
How many of those contracts would be enforceable?
All of them assuming they are entered into legally. Why wouldn't they be?
quote:
How stable do you think one of these relationships will be if at every turn you have to treat that person like they are a business transaction
How did you get to this line of thought? You do understand that the current marriage laws make you enter into a contract, correct? I just want to change the way in which that contract is entered.
quote:
The marriage laws protect the weaker parties
The parties should be equal and have equal protections. How do you define weaker party and why are they afforded more protections?
1
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:21 pm to xiv
You don't understand what people mean when they say this
Marriage would be a private contract between two individuals. You would pay a lawyer. The religious and non-religous alike would follow the same process.
The governments job would be enforcement of the private contract.
Marriage would be a private contract between two individuals. You would pay a lawyer. The religious and non-religous alike would follow the same process.
The governments job would be enforcement of the private contract.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:22 pm to Nguyener
quote:
Boy you add getting dangerously close to calling inner-city communities and fatherless children uncivilized sub-humans
In science we call this 'subspecies.' It's more polite.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:23 pm to Nguyener
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/26/23 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:25 pm to CivilTiger83
quote:
So she should receive nothing to compensate for her care of the children that he otherwise would have had to pay for?
She received a house to live under the entire time and all of the money spent to raise and clothe and feed them and I assume unless she was chained to the basement she has been spending money on herself as well. She can get a job and take care of herself. The man should absolutely be on the hook for paying for the children. But not the woman. She can provide for herself. She's an adult.
If she freely chose not to have a career and she freely chose not to plan for the provider leaving then she can deal with the consequences of her choices.
And what about divorces without children?
Arguing that a woman can't take care of herself because she was a stay at home mom for a few years is as insulting as it is ignorant.
But let's say I agree with your premise. Fine. I bet Kobe Bryant and Jeff Bezos would rather pay the cumulative cost of daycare and entry salary instead of half their livelihood to a woman who never ran a business or hit a layup.
This post was edited on 4/4/19 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:26 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
you think what we have now creates issues, what do you think it's going to be when a court has to interpret specific contract language in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE regarding familial unions.
Maybe it will force people to think more carefully about who they marry and who they have children with.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:28 pm to Tiguar
quote:
Marriage would be a private contract between two individuals. You would pay a lawyer. The religious and non-religous alike would follow the same process.
The governments job would be enforcement of the private contract.
There you go.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:28 pm to xiv
quote:
Rogan and Shapiro agree: get government out of marriage
It's over. They lost the fight. The queers can marry and they need to get the frick over it.
This get government out of marriage nonsense is just take my ball home so nobody can play with it bullshite.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:29 pm to Nguyener
quote:
Maybe it will force people to think more carefully about who they marry and who they have children with.
Force?
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:32 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:How so?
The process is much more cumbersome without a marriage license
quote:How so?
Your ideal will essentially require an INCREASED government involvement in a lot of instances.
quote:How so?
Marriage licenses create presumptions that help alleviate such things.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:32 pm to DelU249
quote:
that’s vague.
Not really.
quote:
I’m against gay marriage.
Ok.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:34 pm to CivilTiger83
quote:This occurs even today with live ins
And what about her earnings and career sacrifice that she gave up to be a stay at home mom?
And, besides, now you're discussing alimony, not child support
quote:I strongly support two parent households. That piece of paper ain't causing those! LOL
Research shows on average children from stable two parent households are better off in the long run.
quote:The govt can recognize it STILL without requiring licenses, money or govt approval.
The government has long been in the game of honoring/recognizing an institution that is at the heart of our society.
You and a woman say you're married? OK. You're married
Done
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:36 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
The process is much more cumbersome without a marriage license
How so?
When there is a marriage license the father of the offspring is presumed to be the husband.
quote:
quote:
Your ideal will essentially require an INCREASED government involvement in a lot of instances.
How so?
Absent state recognition of marriages the mother will IN EVERY INSTANCE be required to prove the father of the child is of the man from whom she is seeking support.
quote:
quote:
Marriage licenses create presumptions that help alleviate such things.
How so?
See, above.
Edited to change cumbersome language
This post was edited on 4/4/19 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:39 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:Which frankly, isn't always the case. A LOT more than people realize.
When there is a marriage license the patrimony of the offspring is presumed to be the husband.
quote:Honestly, I'm completely OK with that. That SHOULD be required now absent the man stipulating to it.
Absent state recognition of marriages the mother will IN EVERY INSTANCE be required to prove the patrimony of the child is of the man from whom she is seeking support.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:39 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
When there is a marriage license the patrimony of the offspring is presumed to be the husband.
quote:
Absent state recognition of marriages the mother will IN EVERY INSTANCE be required to prove the patrimony of the child is of the man from whom she is seeking support.
Have the father sign the birth certificate in the hospital. Problem solved. Next issue?
And this does not address the problem of a woman who has been unfaithful and tricks the man. Actually, in many states, even if a man can prove he's been tricked, he can still be on the line for the children that aren't his. Thanks to marriage.
This post was edited on 4/4/19 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:40 pm to Nguyener
quote:
Have the father sign the birth certificate in the hospital. Problem solved. Next issue?
So, you like state involvement there?
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:40 pm to Sentrius
quote:Honestly, I've had this opinion regarding the absurdity of govt "approving" marriages for more than 30 years.
This get government out of marriage nonsense is just take my ball home so nobody can play with it bullshite.
Don't assume
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:41 pm to Nguyener
quote:
Actually, in many states, even if a man can prove he's been tricked, he can still be on the line for the children that aren't his. Thanks to marriage.
Yup
In many states, even if you prove your wife apparently made the 6 year old with someone else, it makes ZERO difference
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:42 pm to Nguyener
quote:
And this does not address the problem of a woman who has been unfaithful and tricks the man. Actually, in many states, even if a man can prove he's been tricked, he can still be on the line for the children that aren't his. Thanks to marriage.
Yep. Fortunately, our society allows ways out of this.
The current presumption is still better and more efficient for a functioning one than whatever you seem to be proposing, I would postulate.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:42 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
So, you like state involvement there?
Yes. The state should be involved in making sure children are cared for especially in the case of absent and neglectful parents.
And if a woaman sues a man for child support she should have to prove that the children are his.
This post was edited on 4/4/19 at 2:43 pm
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News