She doesn't believe in marriage ... until it's convenient for her purposes.
I'll believe she's never getting married once she's dead.
Until then I'll believe she doesn't see a need for it.

lordargent: "I'm into monogamy. But I'm not really into marriage. I sort of hate the legal aspect of it. What does the state have to do with it?

That

You go into a coma, your spouse makes your medical decisions. You die with out a will, your spouse gets everything. You die because a drunk driver killed you, your spouse can sue for wrongful death. Not married? Too bad. Now, somethings can be handled with a power of attorney, and of course a will, but a marriage license and a quick ceremony with a justice of the peace is a lot cheaper and more effective. I mean, do what you want, but the notion that there aren't very real obligations and benefits to a marriage. Some people get married out of naivety, and some people don't get married out naivety.

dickkead: Most people understand there's benefits to legal marriage. And that's one of the reasons why gay's want same sex marriage to be legal.

I understand that, and I have no problems with gay marriage whatsoever. It's just the people that claim not to see any point in marriage that are overlooking the very practical reasons for it.

Oh I like this picture.



...and a gentle kiss on the shoulder immediately follows...

john_d_corr: Even her. Rally she did.

Did you misspell really, or are you making fun of the way she talked?

Yeah, according to Natalie's bio on Wikipedia, which you know is probably amazingly accurate since its kept up by nerds, she was born in Israel, and considers that to be home. So, yeah, there's probably not much point to her marrying in America.

She'll be singing a different tune when, God forbid, the lover of her life needs a life-saving operation and she doesn't have the legal authority to approve it on his behalf.

Nabb1: lordargent: "I'm into monogamy. >
Some people get married out of naivety, and some people don't get married out naivety.

Sorry, friend.

It's naivete.
With an *e.*

Carry on.

Because, historically (heterosexual) marriage protected women. There is admittedly less need for that now.

/Discuss

Link (new window)Zarkin Frood: Milo Minderbinder: Because, historically (heterosexual) marriage protected women. There is admittedly less need for that now.
/Discuss

i want some of whatever you're on..

Argument: Man dies. Who gets his stuff? Answer: She does if she was married to him (intestacy).

Argument #2: Man and woman split up. Who pays for the kids? Answer: He does if she was married to him (child support).

Argument #3: Man and woman split up. Does woman get any cash? Answer: She does if she was married to him (alimony).

The point is, marriage records a relationship and creates a basis for possible future legal obligations.

/If it doesn't protect women, why no polygamy in Western civilization? Or polyandry, for that matter?

Zarkin Frood: Milo Minderbinder: Link (new window)Zarkin Frood: Milo Minderbinder:
Because, historically (heterosexual) marriage protected women. There is admittedly less need for that now. /Discuss
i want some of whatever you're on..

Argument: Man dies. Who gets his stuff? Answer: She does if she was married to him (intestacy).
Argument #2: Man and woman split up. Who pays for the kids? Answer: He does if she was married to him (child support).
Argument #3: Man and woman split up. Does woman get any cash? Answer: She does if she was married to him (alimony).
The point is, marriage records a relationship and creates a basis for possible future legal obligations.
/If it doesn't protect women, why no polygamy in Western civilization? Or polyandry, for that matter?

Rebuttal#1: If a man dies, his property gets distributed based on how his will is written, and is not automatically given to his spouse (of course, the spouse can contest this in court, so it balances out in accordance with jurisprudence)

Rebuttal#2: If a heterosexual couple with children splits up, generally, the ex who does not have physical custody makes up the difference by offsetting costs. They do not pay everything, as you may know if you have any divorced friends. And generally the woman gets custody because of ancient social mores dictating that they are biologically more fit parents.

Rebuttal#3: In a divorce, depending on if it is a no-fault state, the higher-earning spouse generally provides alimony to the lesser-earning spouse, in order to maintain "quality of life".. now, due to us living in a patriarchal society with a glass ceiling, the male is usually the higher earner. Therefore, statistically, the male is simply more likely to have to pay alimony.

And there is no polygamy/polyandry in Western civilization because of outdated puritanical beliefs concerning monogamy. Plus it's expensive as shiat. :-)


Sur-rebuttal: Wills only apply of you have one, and even if you do, all states limit the extent to which a spouse can dis-inherit their spouse. For most of them, it is 50%. In reality, the number of testate estates that disinherit a spouse at all is statistically non-existent; it's much easier to get a divorce. Either way, the other spouse is protected, and historically, this meant the woman because she earned less.

Sur-rebuttal #2: You make my point: the divorced woman gets child support. Today, with genetic testing, the marriage is irrelevant. But before that, how did you prove who your Dad is? Answer: who is your Mom married to? The point is, by marying, the woman ensured some protection for her children.

Sur-rebuttal #3: Again, you make my point; historically, who was almost always earned less? By marrying, the woman ensured that even if the marriage went south, she would have some financial recourse.

The bigger point is that marriage formalizes the relationship, limiting the husband's future claims if things go wrong; he can't say "the kids aren't mine" or " I never promised her anything." When he dies, his family can't stake claim to (their) property.

/Funny, when I think polygamy, I think mormon fundamentalists, the very essence of "outdated and puritanical."