That completely misses the point. The fact is that the current practices are very sexist and heavily favor those with vaginas and take what can only been seen as punative measures against those with penises. The fact is that marriage is fundamentaly a religious concept, and church and state are supposed to be seperate. Hence marriage has no legitimate place as a legal entity. Marriage is religious in nature. If people want to have ceremonies to celebrate their unions, and call themselves "married", then so be it. However there should be no legal status to account for it. There should be no legal status called "married", complete with different taxation etc. Government and courts have no business in family. The best thing we could do for marriage is to take government out of it. Then we also don't have to support the parasite which is the family court system off our labor. One more beauracracy put to rest...
If you really want to look at this as a business... think about it. Guys take out a womens good years and gets them to pump out kids... which takes serious tolls on their bodies. If the state did not protect them financially the tax payers would be supporting a hell of lot more women and kids. as a tax payer I want to make sure women and kids are supported by the guy who made babies with them.
wow. are you really trying to argue that women are physically unable to work after they have had children, and trying to justify alimoney and child support policies that way?LOL! aren't you supposed to be a lawyer??
Someone gets out of the workforce for 5 or 10 years and they miss alot of opportunities for promotion & higher income because they stayed home and took care of the kids while the other spouse that worked, got all the promotions for the time he put in at work. So the wife who was at home, now has to start from scratch at the same time being middle aged and competing with a younger more educated crowd. On a reverse case, there is Joan Lunden who's husband helped get her to where she is and she had to pay him $18,000 per month alimony when they got divorced which I think is only fair because without him, she would have had to stay home with her kids and work some part time job at K-mart that was flexible with their hours for her. Its my belief that if you cheat, you should lose half your networth. If your spouse cheats, they should lose half their net worth.
most women do not leave the work force, so that's a universally enforced provision for a tiny minority of situations. also, are you saying that there should be no risks in marriage? there are certainly risks for men in marriage which aren't hedged at all, yet there should be for women? what are you some kind of sexist or something??? men risk the women deciding to leave them for whatever reason they feel like, taking half of everything, even if they actually earned none of it, and getting payments forever. women are incentivized to leave marriages, and in fact initiate the large majority of divorces... women can screw all the guys friends, be wreckless with money and assets, decide to run off with another guy, or just want to be single again and take the lionshare of the wealth + a substantial portion of the guys earnings from then on, AND keep the children while the man gets very very little time with them. then, women sit around and ask each other, "why are guys all so scared of marriage?". LOL
I do not know what state your are living in... but in the two states I know pretty well CA and FL the property division seems pretty fair to me. It is supposed to be based on an equal division of the community property in CA. Child support is the one that seems to favor the care giver and as I said as a taxpayer.... i think that is a good choice.
Thats why you dont marry a ho. Only marry a woman that has morals, preferably one that is a virgin and its VERY unlikely any of that above situation will happen. Havent you heard the saying "You cant turn a ho into a housewife"?