Replies

I agree the conversation got derailed. It just irks me when people try to strip women (and men) of their innate God-given sexual attraction to the opposite sex, and turn sex into a commodity or something shameful. So I reply to that.

On topic: I don't disagree that marriage laws are probably unfair in some ways. But they always have been. People have always gotten married despite unfair laws.

The differnce I see to day is that marriage is not expected as a social norm, so people (men and women) feel less social pressure to be married. In the past, being unmarried cast doubt on your personal desirability, you may have been considered homosexual, or asexual. You were considered "defective" in some way if you did not marry and have kids. This is not true today.

So many people who in past times may have married out of a social obligation or family pressure, do not marry today. I can only see this as a good thing. I don't really understand all the lamenting about "marriage" per se. Sure the laws should be fair, but in fact, people who want to be married, don't let that deter them, they get pre-nuptials if they have to, or go on faith.

I really don't believe very many people who want to get married don't because of marriage/custody laws, now or in the past. It is however, a convenient excuse for those who don't really want to be married, don't want to make any compromises, don't want to take any personal risks whatsoever, to use laws as an excuse.

I look at it this way, many business partnerships fail yet people continue to enter into business partnerships and deals. Some people have a degree of faith in others and a degree of optimism about the future. The ones who want a sure deal without risks, typically do not go into business for themselves or enter business partnerships with others.

Does this mean that "business" is hopelessly flawed? No, it means that some people want to take that chance and others do not. Personal choice. There is a degree of risk in everything, particularly in cooperating with others. Some people are willing to take that risk, others are not.

many business partnerships fail yet people continue to enter into business partnerships and deals.

It is not customary when businesses fail to award what remaining assets there are to the female partners, and the debts and obligations to the male partners. I probably shouldn't say that out loud; I'm giving the feminists ideas. But today at least, people go into those deals believing that even if the worst happens, they will be treated fairly. It might be ugly, but it will be fair.

That does not happen in divorce. We all know it. If men take this into account, and so deprecate the value of marriage, I don't see why anyone should criticize them for it. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The government can be as one-sided as it likes, but it cannot complain if the side it habitually disfavors stops playing the game.

Divorce often involves something business deals do not. That if your business fails they will "take your first born" is a joke. For men, it is not a joke when a marriage fails; they really do take your kids away. Only women can afford to treat this as a joke. It is extremely offensive when they do.

I really don't believe very many people who want to get married don't because of marriage/custody laws, now or in the past.

Few women do. I can't decide whether that's because the concept of losing one's children is so foreign to them that they cannot relate to it, because they assume that men don't care enough about children to really be affected by having them taken away, or because they know it must be gut-wrenching but ultimately do not care.