>
Ladies, watch out! Over on the Happy Bachelors Forum, a fellow calling himself ac101202 has figured out a sneaky way that guys can escape you gals doing that whole marrying-a-dude-and-divorcing-him-and-taking-all-his-money thing you ladies like to do. All it requires is a little bit of fake-gay marriage on his part.
Imagine if two straight men got legally hitched (emphasis on straight). No expensive ceremony, no grueling engagement process, just signing the contract. Then, they go on and live their separate lives as bachelors. Because of their legally married status they … Cannot get remarried legally. This means if they get married with a women, come divorce time she will be unable to legally claim any of his property as they are not legally married. Bigamy and polygamy is illegal so all marriage contracts signed after the first are not recognized as valid by a court of law.
Oh, you sly dog you. Such a clever idea. And so original!
>Don't most states have a presumption of validity of the subsequent marriage?
>booboonation said… "No matter WHAT I try to post, unless it's this one line, it's telling me it's too large."lolAnd I though artificial intelligence was not for another 50 years!
>"If you are a horrible person that hates women,you deserve vitriol."I.e. "If i believe you are an MRA, you're probably a misogynist by default and I will slag you any given opportunity when I feel like it"Got it.
>I will have to ask a family court judge Amused.
>If men don't want to have to be 'forced' to support a family… why don't they just not have a family? Get a vasectomy so you'll never have children, and tell any woman you can convince to go on a date with you that you're not interested in marriage.Problem solved.
>@ Amused:I hope you remain so (amused) under Shaira law in a decade or two.
>"Get a vasectomy so you'll never have children, and tell any woman you can convince to go on a date with you that you're not interested in marriage."—LVvSThat's nice but you should see how a woman's face falls when you really have serious intent about this.I was flattered that there have been women out there that considered me marriage and family material. I personally really have no desire to raise children; marriage was intriguing for a long time, but since getting married (for men) isn't a good bargain in the US I have become more cynical.A woman that is truly interested in you may become quite frustrated if that choice/possibility of marriage and kids in the future is something you are down upon, and are adamant about avoiding.
>No, it doesn't. Research suggests that self-identified feminists are more likely to be in a stable long-term relationship than women who identify themselves as non-feminist; and men involved with feminists report a greater degree of sexual and emotional satisfaction than men involved with non-feminists. (Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071015102856.htm)@Amused – Actually, women not in relationships and lesbians were culled from their study. Additionally, the methodology used was ludicrous at best. The original article is here, if you'd like to read it.Otherwise, here is an excerpt: "Participants who were not in a current relationship (129 women, 126 men) or who reported not being exclusively heterosexual (21 women, 14 men) were excluded for the analyses[…]"The Science Daily report was just some feminist trying to make her ilk seem remotely tolerable.How do you know anything about feminist relationships if you deliberately skew the tables from the start of the research?I'm sorry for embarrassing you, but you can't keep remaining ignorant.Now, moving on to boob:When people lie about such vital issues as domestic violence and societal status, then there are instances when you will draw caustic wrath upon yourself. If you are a horrible person that hates women,you deserve vitriol. Are these same people dealing out their caustic manners on everyone they know on a regular basis? I know a man that does that, and it's because he's concerned with all the suffering on the planet. And, he's right.So what you're saying is that your emotional state of mind is my responsibility. You can act like that, sure, but you're angry because you choose to be so. I will not take responsibility for your feelings or your actions, no matter how immature or inept you claim to be.
>wytchfinde555: So what? Being open about the fact that you never want to have children or get married may shrink the pool of potential partners, but it's certainly preferable to fraud. I would assume that anyone who is bothered by how women's faces look when you tell them you don't want to get married (though I assure you — it's not because they decided on the first, or second, or fourth date that they want to marry you) at some point performs a cost-benefit analysis. I mean, that would be the logical thing to do. If the cost of seeing your potential mates drop off in great numbers is unbearable to you, then perhaps you should think about taking the risks involved in the alternative. If the risks are greater than these costs, then, well, none of us can have our cake and eat it too. There are plenty of women not interested in marriage or motherhood; I'm sure there is one for you.IR: Women AND men not currently in a relationship or who are gay were excluded. As for the methodology supposedly being ridiculous — I don't find that statement credible in light of your suggestion that lesbianism is inspired by certain political beliefs. That argument has been debunked over and over, to the point where it's not even worth engaging. Feminism does not make women lesbian, period. As I've pointed out — all of you men who are angry about past relationships and how women behaved in them, all of you were involved with non-feminist women BECAUSE they identified themselves as non-feminist. And apparently it didn't work out as you expected it to. If any of you had brains, or allowed your brains to think rationally, you'd ponder that for a while.
>A woman that is truly interested in you may become quite frustrated if that choice/possibility of marriage and kids in the future is something you are down upon, and are adamant about avoiding. Yes, because, and I know this may sound bizarre, but a lot of women (very often due to social expectations) want to have kids.I personally made up my mind in my early 20s that I was not going to waste my time building up a serious relationship with someone who didn't have the same life expectations as me. In my case, those expectations included children (but this is actually irrelevant, as other people might want to travel, or live overseas, or take up cattle farming and these are also things to take into consideration if you get travel-sick, or never want to leave your hometown, or are vegan). And you know what? The childfree guys I've known haven't whinged because I wouldn't date them, they've been thrilled that I haven't ignored their choices or lied to them in the hopes of Changing Them When We're Married.Which is all irrelevant, I realise, as MRAs don't actually perceive women as individual human beings with individual aspirations and desires which should be respected by their sexual or romantic partners.
>@Elizabeth, in the US, federal law prohibits any federal rights of marriage being given to same sex couples (look up DOMA for more on this). States that have their own same sex marriage laws only grant couples limited rights given by the individual state. On the bigamy issue, there is no case precedent on the matter as far as I know. The thing about overturning laws in the US courts is that it is generally done retroactively. While it might be possible for a person who has a same sex marriage recognition by a state to then sue in regards to a later marriage, it would be hard to get standing barring some barrier to divorce or an actual bigamy prosecution (the latter is very rare).In the absence of same sex bigamy cases, we can look at opposite sex ones, where the second duped spouse usually can collect fully in divorce as they were the victim of fraud and the opposing party was the one that violated the contract (because marriage counts as a legal contract). It would be unlikely that a person would be denied full collection in divorce based upon the other partner's previously unknown illegal bigamy, except perhaps in cases involving assests also claimed by the first spouse. A victim of fraud in contract negotiations is generally not denied the right to collect contractual benefits (or their equivalent) simply because the other party's fraud makes the contract void. Void contract is only a defense if the party acted in good faith which would certainly not be the case here or in any fraud case.Of course, everything above only applies to US law. I do not know what country ac101202 hails from, but it seems unlikely that countries that actually allow same sex marriage would let you utilize it for fraud purposes any more easily than with opposite sex marriage.