Posted on 07/06/2002 5:00:19 AM PDT by buccaneer81
I would wager a month's pay there isn't a male poster on this thread who agrees with no fault divorce laws. Especially those of us who have been cuckholded.
i used to call this a "cottage industry" in this area: certain lawyers with a network of divorcees who feed them business. the more belligerently the lawyer treats the soon-to-be ex-husband, the better. the women are coached in setting up the goose so they falsely can claim domestic violence, child molestation, or infidelity while the network acts as a megaphone for the twisted half-truths and outright lies. as alluded earlier, i couldn't have imagined such a blight on the institution of marriage until it was plainly illustrated to me.
yes virginia, there are bad women out there who are scheming and no, they aren't as easy to discern as one might think.
to the response of "what about the stinky men out there": sure, there are plenty as the number of unwantedly single moms without help supporting their children will attest. that doesn't diminish the seriousness of the subject at hand, either for its inequity or its consequences.
If I were a man I would be mad too, and I would very definately think twice before I put my whole future in the hands of some woman who could wreck my life if I squeeze the toothpaste from the middle.
Even though neither partner may ever mention it, both know that the woman has a nuke, in the form of a government that will step in instantly at her say-so to deprive the man of house, home, children, assets, income, and possibly even liberty. It is not a happy thing to share a home with someone who can do that at the snap of a finger. The threat is always there. Who wants to live with that? A man can't just marry a woman anymore; her government moves in with her, whether she wants it to or not. That changes the character of the relationship in some fundamental ways that could understandably turn a lot of people off. The feminists will tell us that these are all very necessary protections to keep women from being battered, but the rest of the women will have to pardon the rest of the men for not signing up for a program that treats them like criminals. |
Sure we do.
I don't feel a need to meet anyones reqirements for anything. God is going to deal with this and if society legislates their "marriage" (which is merely a piece of paper, like a rental contract actually. No limits on behavior, no regard for anything biblical) out of the reach of men then so be it.
I could care less about their "marriage" and what other men think of it.
Yes, Paul did. And what happened when men judged him on his service?
Are you saying that it isn't possible to find these things out before you get married? Do you put more thought into evaluating potential employees than you do marriage partners?
Orwellian, n'est ce pas?
Please note that this applies right up to the time they actually emerge from the womb. That child is "her's" prior to this and she can kill it regardless of her husbands feelings on the matter because it's "her" body.
It's no wonder people scratch their heads and wonder what happened to marriage and the nuclear family.
Just when I thought the thread was composed of endless misogyny, I came across your post. Bravo. It's not much like a romance novel at all. Unless you can find a romance novel where a couple stares loving at each other over plates of macroni and cheese, under the harsh flourescent lights of their cheap apartment.
Poverty never happens in romance novels. I haven't read any personally, but from I've gathered in casual conversation, everyone in romance novels is already successful by 23. Unfortunately, in the real world, success usually comes a bit later in life.
BTW, true love is waving to your wife as they wheel you into sugery, and you know that she's going to be there when you wake up.
They're intended to, but it doesn't always work out that way. They are difficult to write well and must be revised when circumstances change within the marriage. When legally challenged, they can be quite expensive to defend, especially when agenda-driven judges make arbitrary rulings that must then be appealed -- or even when judges make proper judgments which are appealed anyway. Such battles can go on endlessly and at great expense. Therefore, many attorneys advise their clients to back off and relinquish a lot of what is rightfully theirs, even though the law and the facts are on their side.
Bottom line: A pre-nup will only keep honest people honest. If you want protection, marry someone who's not nearly as smart or Machiavellian as you, then get the goods on your prospective spouse and save them up for a legal "rainy day." That means investing in private investigators, steadily amassing your evidence, keeping track of the whereabouts and status of potential future witnesses, and always regarding your life partner as a potential legal adversary who may eventually have to be proven an unfit parent, faithless harridan, etc. Then, of course, the offspring of your union must be relentlessly conditioned to favor you in any testimony they may be called upon to make. This is a lot of work, carried out in secrecy and guaranteed to poison the relationship no matter what happens.
Under such cloak-and-dagger conditions, what would be the point of marrying at all?
I am glad you mentioned that.. Because IMNSHO I think these images of marriage in the media give people false expectations.. They focus on people who are continually happy and live their lives 5 minutes at a time.
Consequently, I think many people who do not respect the Covenant of marriage as God defines it are left with unrealistic hopes and misconceived notions of what marriage is in reality.
In short: They set themselves up to be continually dissapointed by using the media as a measure of what should constitute a "marriage" This dissapointment leads to marital failure.
I thought the article that started this thread was about men avoiding marriage now because of these things. Did you read that article? If you did, why would you ask this question?
Under such cloak-and-dagger conditions, what would be the point of marrying at all?
I agree, what would be the point? Yet, there's enough women doing just what you mention in order to steal the man's assets. That's exactly what is making marriage unattractive. Now I know, there's always been gold diggers, but this practice has reached epidemic proportions and all with the aid of the courts.
Boys, keep your drawers on and don't get married. That's my take on it.
If society defines marriage as a suicide pact for the man involved, with no recourse if the wife kills their children.. fools around or does whatever she pleases with no respect for the spirit of God's Covenant.. Then their "marriage" is just a contract.
It's hollow and meaningless. Nothing Biblical about it.
Thus, I feel you can marry before God and still shun the social contract of "marriage" Because it's meaningless anyway.
1) how much due diligence was performed on these wives? Were the main criteria used how good she was in bed and what she looked like in a bathing suit? (If male readers of FR consider other criteria, you would never know it from their posts.)
2)What kind of discussions took place before the marriage on what each partner expected from the other?
3)Why aren't there any interviews with the wives who decided to divorce their husbands?
You know very little without the answers. All I see is men whining.
Actually, the article focuses on female "whining"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.