Liberal Forum

Why don't men want to get married any longer?  Divorce.  They've been burned badly by a divorce.  Their divorce-scarred children also learn that getting married leads to divorce which leads to financial ruin.

So, why not have a national divorce standard?  The default setting would be that everyone who gets married gets to keep whatever they brought into the marriage, assuming they still have it when they get divorced. Everything else - money and stuff acquired through out the marriage gets split 50/50.

The cost of paying for any children gets split 50/50.  No Alimony. 

If women aren't satisfied with the default setting, then put it on THEM to get a prenuptial agreement setting out something different. Also, put a time requirement for re-marriage on anyone who gets divorced.  Something like 2 years.  This will discourage lonely women enticing married men away from their wives, because the man couldn't be legally bound to a marriage for 2 years.  This seems fair to me.

My question is, if this were the "law of the land", would this encourage decent men, particularly young men, to embrace marriage and the family unit?
 
 
 

Unfortunately, society has changed too much. Feminism is a huge part of it. Women have realized that they can simply get bored with a husband, leave him... and collect half his **** and bounce to the next dick. Social media doesn't help either. A person can simply "cheat" while texting in bed or surfing 1000 different social media/dating apps.

How to fix marriage? Stop it. Don't need it.
Queers have already ruined it...

Pick a better woman to marry. Quit thinking with your dick and use your brain.

The financial award system favors the mother because they are for the most part better mothers and the men are typically better at making money.

PhiloBeddo » 07 May 2025, 8:45 pm » wrote: ↑

07 May 2025, 8:45 pm

Pick a better woman to marry. Quit thinking with your dick and use your brain.

Like Robin Williams said..."Men have two brains, one in their head and the other in their penis...and the problem is, there's only enough blood to operate one at a time..."
 

Skans » 07 May 2025, 2:00 pm » wrote: ↑

07 May 2025, 2:00 pm

Why don't men want to get married any longer?  Divorce.  They've been burned badly by a divorce.  Their divorce-scarred children also learn that getting married leads to divorce which leads to financial ruin.

So, why not have a national divorce standard?  The default setting would be that everyone who gets married gets to keep whatever they brought into the marriage, assuming they still have it when they get divorced. Everything else - money and stuff acquired through out the marriage gets split 50/50.

The cost of paying for any children gets split 50/50.  No Alimony. 

If women aren't satisfied with the default setting, then put it on THEM to get a prenuptial agreement setting out something different. Also, put a time requirement for re-marriage on anyone who gets divorced.  Something like 2 years.  This will discourage lonely women enticing married men away from their wives, because the man couldn't be legally bound to a marriage for 2 years.  This seems fair to me.

My question is, if this were the "law of the land", would this encourage decent men, particularly young men, to embrace marriage and the family unit?
 

why not a decade instead of 2 years. I managed to stay married 44 years because I won't control others that have to govern my behavior daily. That sounds like I am henpecked, I don't care what it sounds like by social consensus since all social consensus centers around denying how evolving works in plain sight daily.

My sarcasm is my venting process for my brain resisting those that won't stop believing now cannot be the balance point of eternity where each lifetime here exists as specifically eternally separated now.

murdock » 07 May 2025, 6:03 pm » wrote: ↑

07 May 2025, 6:03 pm

How to fix marriage? Stop it. Don't need it.
Queers have already ruined it...

Well, I don't find that acceptable.  I believe that marriage as a means of procreation and raising children is still the best method to facilitate a strong society. The state can't replace marriage - we've seen how miserably that's failed.  No need to invent something new.  We had something that worked well for thousands of years.

Birth control and abortion on demand are probably the two things that destroyed marriage more than anything. Women were never equal until effective birth control was invented. In fact, they were never designed to be equal to men.  They were designed to be complimentary to men.
 

31stArrival » 08 May 2025, 5:45 am » wrote: ↑

08 May 2025, 5:45 am

why not a decade instead of 2 years.

Because, 2 years is enough of a deterrent to keep the female flies off fresh **** when a marriage is going through a rough patch.
 

Skans » 08 May 2025, 8:51 am » wrote: ↑

08 May 2025, 8:51 am

Because, 2 years is enough of a deterrent to keep the female flies off fresh **** when a marriage is going through a rough patch.
 

Again, basing life off artificial time references when life evolves eternally separated by the moment here your geographical position is on a rotating planet compared location by proximity to midnight, dawn, noon, dusk, nightly lunar phase, 4 seasons relative to which side of the equator each ancestor exists conceived to dead, never same shape, since formed their original shape of a fertilized cell with one set of chromosomes that last the endurance of the species inception to extinction one cycle of life at a time here, specifically, now.

Syllables invent truth and lies in every social circle nd language barriers between ancestral lineages and generation gaps living in series parallel positions of population at large each rotation in this atmosphere.

Chromosomes are a compounding result of pervious generations since inception. Syllables are just a means for brains to communicate when occupying space daily here.

31stArrival » 08 May 2025, 8:58 am » wrote: ↑

08 May 2025, 8:58 am

Again, basing life off artificial time references when life evolves eternally separated by the moment here your geographical position is on a rotating planet compared location by proximity to midnight, dawn, noon, dusk, each ancestor exists conceived to dead never same shape since formed their original shape of a fertilized cell with one set of chromosomes that last the endurance of the species inception to extinction one cycle of life at a time here, specifically, now.

Syllables invent truth and lies in every social circle nd language barriers between ancestral lineages and generation gaps living in series parallel positions of population at large each rotation in this atmosphere.

Chromosomes are a compounding result of pervious generations since inception. Syllables are just a means for brains to communicate when occupying space daily here.

In one of my previous lives, I was a fly, and I can still smell fresh **** that is less than 2 years old!
 

Skans » 08 May 2025, 9:00 am » wrote: ↑

08 May 2025, 9:00 am

In one of my previous lives, I was a fly, and I can still smell fresh **** that is less than 2 years old!
 

ha ha ha ha. periodic elements erode to chemically create organism that decompose back into molecular content changing shape by combined atoms into characteristic elements sustaining universal positions perpetually balancing from the perpetual motions of expanding details never duplicated and contracting results never same again.

thermodynamic principles 101 and this is how principals of reasonable doubt keep ancestries wishing now wasn't eternity enough to believe anything else is better than time adapting eternally separated now every generation gap forward until extinction hits with the end of arriving great great grandchildren changing population 24/7 in plain sight life never exceeded personally adapting now.

31stArrival » 08 May 2025, 9:49 am » wrote: ↑

08 May 2025, 9:49 am

ha ha ha ha. periodic elements erode to chemically create organism that decompose back into molecular content changing shape by combined atoms into characteristic elements sustaining universal positions perpetually balancing from the perpetual motions of expanding details never duplicated and contracting results never same again.

thermodynamic principles 101 and this is how principals of reasonable doubt keep ancestries wishing now wasn't eternity enough to believe anything else is better than time adapting eternally separated now every generation gap forward until extinction hits with the end of arriving great great grandchildren changing population 24/7 in plain sight life never exceeded personally adapting now.

Babbling **** spewing **** eating queer.

murdock » 08 May 2025, 10:16 am » wrote: ↑

08 May 2025, 10:16 am

Babbling **** spewing **** eating queer.

Time you get evolving after conception is going to punish you like you never imagined possible defending artificial time after birth used specifically for social logistic existing in 24 relative time zones moving by same specific event horizons 72 event horizons daily.

31stArrival » 08 May 2025, 10:32 am » wrote: ↑

08 May 2025, 10:32 am

Time you get evolving after conception is going to punish you like you never imagined possible defending artificial time after birth used specifically for social logistic existing in 24 relative time zones moving by same specific event horizons 72 event horizons daily.

Babbling **** spewing **** eating queer.

Skans » 07 May 2025, 2:00 pm » wrote: ↑

07 May 2025, 2:00 pm

Why don't men want to get married any longer?  Divorce.  They've been burned badly by a divorce.  Their divorce-scarred children also learn that getting married leads to divorce which leads to financial ruin.

So, why not have a national divorce standard?  The default setting would be that everyone who gets married gets to keep whatever they brought into the marriage, assuming they still have it when they get divorced. Everything else - money and stuff acquired through out the marriage gets split 50/50.

The cost of paying for any children gets split 50/50.  No Alimony. 

If women aren't satisfied with the default setting, then put it on THEM to get a prenuptial agreement setting out something different. Also, put a time requirement for re-marriage on anyone who gets divorced.  Something like 2 years.  This will discourage lonely women enticing married men away from their wives, because the man couldn't be legally bound to a marriage for 2 years.  This seems fair to me.

My question is, if this were the "law of the land", would this encourage decent men, particularly young men, to embrace marriage and the family unit?

Marriage is about commitment anyway. The law shouldn't even be involved. People don't have to get married to be with each other until death do them part nor do they need to be married to raise kids together. Forget the legal part of it all. It makes no sense. 

Vegas » 08 May 2025, 2:45 pm » wrote: ↑

08 May 2025, 2:45 pm

Marriage is about commitment anyway. The law shouldn't even be involved. People don't have to get married to be with each other until death do them part nor do they need to be married to raise kids together. Forget the legal part of it all. It makes no sense.
 

I have to disagree. The "law" has always been involved in marriage, at least as long as England has had a King (although it actually started with Roman Law). Civil society has always had an interest in the proper care of a woman with children, and the children.  Living together without marriage is a very modern, hippy-commune construct. It was rare to non-existent prior to the 1960's.

This is why a marriage is specifically between a man and a woman.  For the purpose of starting a family.  For all ages, people have recognized that F-ed up families cause societal problems.  So, this is why there is a ceremony and laws governing marriage - it is for the man and woman to announce their commitment, WITH THE CONSENT OF THEIR RELATIVES, AND TO THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THEIR SOCIETY, that until death, they will care for one another and for their children, so that the other members of the village won't have to.

Skans » 08 May 2025, 3:17 pm » wrote: ↑

08 May 2025, 3:17 pm

I have to disagree. The "law" has always been involved in marriage, at least as long as England has had a King (although it actually started with Roman Law). Civil society has always had an interest in the proper care of a woman with children, and the children.  Living together without marriage is a very modern, hippy-commune construct. It was rare to non-existent prior to the 1960's.

This is why a marriage is specifically between a man and a woman.  For the purpose of starting a family.  For all ages, people have recognized that F-ed up families cause societal problems.  So, this is why there is a ceremony and laws governing marriage - it is for the man and woman to announce their commitment, WITH THE CONSENT OF THEIR RELATIVES, AND TO THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THEIR SOCIETY, that until death, they will care for one another and for their children, so that the other members of the village won't have to.

Interesting. Either way, you are correct in that the man usually gets the short end of the stick. It baffles me how a billionaire's wife can get half of that wealth when she didn't do a damn thing to earn it. 

Vegas » 08 May 2025, 3:39 pm » wrote: ↑

08 May 2025, 3:39 pm

Interesting. Either way, you are correct in that the man usually gets the short end of the stick. It baffles me how a billionaire's wife can get half of that wealth when she didn't do a damn thing to earn it.

I agree.  That shouldn't be allowed to happen.  The harder question is what to do about ordinary people who have limited resources and kids. I think society has a stake in the outcome of those marriages especially when they fail.  But, the laws have gone way overboard in giving advantages to women over men.