Moontiger Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I will agree that the law is a bit slow in changing. But the laws were there to protect women for when they did not work. The flow of the law does not keep up with society. HOWEVER, if you are cohabiting or married to someone and have no children whatsoever I cannot see your future pay cheques beyond divorce being tapped because she wants to sit on her bottom and eat bonbons. It doesn't really work that way. And if you lived together or are married BOTH of you contributed to the common good so you should share it equally. Agreed. It's called "cultural lag". When women could not work this protections were vital. The law moves slowly and it will take time for it to catch up. Parental Alienation is being taken more and more seriously by the court system (as it should be). And let's be honest, if you have a kid and then don't want to support that kid you're a donkey butt. Link to comment
Seraphim Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Agreed. It's called "cultural lag". When women could not work this protections were vital. The law moves slowly and it will take time for it to catch up. Parental Alienation is being taken more and more seriously by the court system (as it should be). And let's be honest, if you have a kid and then don't want to support that kid you're a donkey butt. Exactly more and more cases of parental alienation are being taken into consideration. And laws are so difficult to change and it takes lots of time. That's just the way the legal system is set up. And it's unfortunate in both ways. Link to comment
ParisPaulette Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 At the end of the day much of our court system depends on who has the meaner lawyer. I know certainly plenty of women who ended up holding the short end of the stick too as well as yes men. You get lawyers involved and if you own any assets worth anything yeah cha-ching cha-ching that cash machine is gonna ring. BUT that doesn't mean it's always going to go one way or the other and way too many people go into a court thinking it is only to get burned. That said yeah prenups are a good idea. My hubs and I have one in place, both fair, both agreed on by both of us. But what works better is having good personal boundaries, getting to know a person long term and most important of all "stop ignoring serious red flags before you say I do." Seriously, the number of people I see here and know in real life who marry someone when they know there are red flags in the first place is just ridiculous. My own attitude has become, somewhat cynically, "Oh, you knew he/she was a cheater before you married them and NOW you're astonished they've retained an attorney and drained your bank accounts and left you on the street? What part of this wasn't a good person in the first place that you shouldn't have married did you not understand?" At the end of the day take the time to know the other person, accept and pay attention to those red flags, have agreed upon prenups in place, document the crap out of any infidelity and abuse, and if you can go the mutual divorce route if at all possible. My ex and I did our own divorce--they used to sell kits, not sure they do now--and it was painless. Not that we owned enough for any lawyer to have been interested in us anyways. They just handed us our papers and we worked out our own custody. But as a woman who worked at a woman's shelter I can tell you guys it doesn't always go the woman's way. And it doesn't always go the man's way. It usually has more to do with who the judges and lawyers are and good documentation on why the divorce. And even then yeah, it's a crap shoot. Just like the rest of life. Link to comment
Blue Spiral Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Men should never get married. I'd advise women against getting married, as well, even though the system is currently designed in their favor. Marriage hurts men in a legal/financial sense; marriage hurts women in a psychological/gender role sense. I've known many women who felt pigeonholed after getting married. They thought they could bring a little tradition into their life and keep the modern aspects (independence, equality, etc.), but they quickly found that the former pushed out the latter. I love how people are trumpeting the "misleading" divorce statistics. Wow, if you play around with the stats, it's only 35% or 40%, and not 50%? "Hey, stop whining, this gun only has two bullets in it, not three. So it's perfectly safe to play Russian Roulette! Those numbers are just statistics, anyway!" When the argument in favor of something is that it doesn't quite fail half of the time, well...that "something" isn't very strong to begin with. Link to comment
Seraphim Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I don't think I've played roulette though and neither does my husband. We are quite happy. Link to comment
saluk Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Statistics are dumb. Even if you ignore the fact that none of the researchers can agree on the measurement. Their main use is in post-hoc rationalization which can be used to make very broad policy decisions in hopes to generally improve things for large groups of people. They are pretty poor as a way to make pre-hoc judgements on personal decisions. Remove all marriages of convenience where one person knows they are in it for money or something else but aren't actually committed to the idea of marriage. Now remove all quickie marriages where the two have gotten married before giving each other time to get to know each other and be sure that they are making an informed decision. Say, within 6 months of meeting each other. Remove all marriages before 25, when the adult brain has fully formed. Remove all marriages which were prompted by a pregnancy, parental pressure, or some other factor outside the two people involved. The rate is going to go down. You can't guarantee that you won't get divorced, but you can certainly stack the deck in your favor. Certainty of never being married vs uncertainty of maybe being divorced: You'll have to weigh that choice according to your values. Certainly it is possible for a couple to be long term without being married. But I suspect statistics on couples breaking up is astronomically higher than whichever divorce statistic you choose! Link to comment
Seraphim Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Statistics are dumb. Even if you ignore the fact that none of the researchers can agree on the measurement. Their main use is in post-hoc rationalization which can be used to make very broad policy decisions in hopes to generally improve things for large groups of people. They are pretty poor as a way to make pre-hoc judgements on personal decisions. Remove all marriages of convenience where one person knows they are in it for money or something else but aren't actually committed to the idea of marriage. Now remove all quickie marriages where the two have gotten married before giving each other time to get to know each other and be sure that they are making an informed decision. Say, within 6 months of meeting each other. Remove all marriages before 25, when the adult brain has fully formed. Remove all marriages which were prompted by a pregnancy, parental pressure, or some other factor outside the two people involved. The rate is going to go down. You can't guarantee that you won't get divorced, but you can certainly stack the deck in your favor. Certainty of never being married vs uncertainty of maybe being divorced: You'll have to weigh that choice according to your values. Certainly it is possible for a couple to be long term without being married. But I suspect statistics on couples breaking up is astronomically higher than whichever divorce statistic you choose! Oh absolutely take the statistics of any romantic relationship breaking up and it is astromonical. If people want to talk statistics they should never have a romantic relationship like ,ever. Link to comment
Pixels Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 In most of Canada if you cohabit for a year you are considered married. Therefore your assets will be distributed evenly by the court even if you are not legally married. If it were this simple then we'd have an epidemic problem with college students divorcing their roommates and taking their stuff... It varies from province to province... Some provinces require that you have a child together to be considered common-law. No provinces recognize cohabitation after only a year (without a child). In many cases it's required that the couple outwardly represent themselves as being married during this time. You can file taxes together and share ownership of assets, if you choose to. That's basically the only thing that changes... When you separate nobody takes anything that doesn't belong to them. If you have shared assets then it's expected that you divide the value either by selling the asset, or having one partner buy it off the other. If one partner feels that the other is unfairly benefiting from the separation it can be appealed in court provided ownership can be shown... There's an imperfect grey-area there... But my interpretation is that society assumes you aren't getting seriously involved with the type of person who would bother going to court to try and steal your laptop or TV... The laws are there to give you a course of action to enforce justice, not hold your hand and take you to a bubble of isolation from the real world... Link to comment
Blue Spiral Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Statistics are dumb. I personally feel like statistics are smart and "I'm a special little snowflake, so I know that won't happen to me"-type thinking is dumb. (Not referring to your post, here.) That's the sort of thinking that causes people to lose tons of money at casinos. "Yeah, most of these people will lose more than they win, but I'm smart and awesome, and I know how to avoid that!" Spoiler alert: the vast majority of us aren't as smart and awesome as we think we are. That's why we have seat belts and insurance and reminders. We screw up, bad things happen to us, we forget about things. So we plan ahead and try to stay objective, because we know that, in the moment, feelings can take over, or we can vastly overestimate our abilities. So, I may get into a situation where I feel like I can be an exception to the rule...but I know the risks involved, and that forces me to be real and remain cautious. Don't get me wrong, I agree that statistics can be misleading and manipulated. But I'm not on-board with this "How I feel about something is more important than the objective reality of that something" idea. Yes, you'll be the exception...or you won't be... Link to comment
Blue Spiral Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 If people want to talk statistics they should never have a romantic relationship like ,ever. Sounds great to me! Link to comment
Seraphim Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 If it were this simple then we'd have an epidemic problem with college students divorcing their roommates and taking their stuff... It varies from province to province... Some provinces require that you have a child together to be considered common-law. No provinces recognize cohabitation after only a year (without a child). In many cases it's required that the couple outwardly represent themselves as being married during this time. You can file taxes together and share ownership of assets, if you choose to. That's basically the only thing that changes... When you separate nobody takes anything that doesn't belong to them. If you have shared assets then it's expected that you divide the value either by selling the asset, or having one partner buy it off the other. If one partner feels that the other is unfairly benefiting from the separation it can be appealed in court provided ownership can be shown... There's an imperfect grey-area there... But my interpretation is that society assumes you aren't getting seriously involved with the type of person who would bother going to court to try and steal your laptop or TV... The laws are there to give you a course of action to enforce justice, not hold your hand and take you to a bubble of isolation from the real world... The military recognizes common-law after year without a child. If you are common law with a child they recognize it much faster. Most common law relationships contained within the military want their union recognized because they want the benefits. Link to comment
Pixels Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 The military recognizes common-law after year without a child. If you are common law with a child they recognize it much faster. Most common law relationships contained within the military want their union recognized because they want the benefits. Neat, didn't know that! I think the point we both arrive at though is that it's not something people typically need to be worried about, and not something you just fall into as a scam... Link to comment
Seraphim Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Neat, didn't know that! I think the point we both arrive at though is that it's not something people typically need to be worried about, and not something you just fall into as a scam... Yes. ...... Link to comment
ottawa Posted November 13, 2015 Author Share Posted November 13, 2015 Wouldn't it be better just to be in a long term relationship, be happy, support each other, but don't get married? A marriage is simply a promise and paperwork. However, promises lose their value when it is has been broken by so many millions of people. 100 years ago, this promise had so much more value than now. In other words, why make promises with so little value. Real promises are kept if there is any way possible. Link to comment
superfan Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 If it were this simple then we'd have an epidemic problem with college students divorcing their roommates and taking their stuff... It varies from province to province... Some provinces require that you have a child together to be considered common-law. No provinces recognize cohabitation after only a year (without a child). In many cases it's required that the couple outwardly represent themselves as being married during this time. You can file taxes together and share ownership of assets, if you choose to. That's basically the only thing that changes... When you separate nobody takes anything that doesn't belong to them. If you have shared assets then it's expected that you divide the value either by selling the asset, or having one partner buy it off the other. If one partner feels that the other is unfairly benefiting from the separation it can be appealed in court provided ownership can be shown... When my husband and I were looking at the best way to sponsor him into the country we had to either be married or considered common law. The requirement for common law was that we had lived together for 1 year. We fell short of that by 1 month so we got married instead (something we were planning to do anyway just not that soon). Also, I shared an apartment with a room mate in college and even though we never filed taxes together I received a couple of letters addressed to Mrs. so and so (assuming I because we had lived together for that period that we were common law). We found it quite amusing. Link to comment
Seraphim Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 The thing is common law is only considered when it is conjugal partnership or romantic partnership not roommates. So you can't divorce roomates. Common law is considered for romantic partners. Link to comment
superfan Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Wouldn't it be better just to be in a long term relationship, be happy, support each other, but don't get married? A marriage is simply a promise and paperwork. However, promises lose their value when it is has been broken by so many millions of people. 100 years ago, this promise had so much more value than now. In other words, why make promises with so little value. Real promises are kept if there is any way possible. Well a promise to stay together can be broken regardless of the legalities. Common law couples break up all the time. Not getting married doesn't save you from a break up. As for your "statistics", there are a lot of factors that need to be considered. Because we have so many couples nowadays that cohabit ate without getting married, the number of actual marriages have dropped considerably. Similarly many people are waiting until they are older before they get married. This skews that statistics. You also have to consider the fact that many more women are initiating divorces because they can do so without as much judgment from society. In previous decades a woman was expected to stay in an abusive/unhealthy marriage because it was unheard of to pursue a divorce. If rates have risen it's because we no longer expect people to stay in detrimental or harmful relationships - there is a way out. As for whether or not to marry, that one is up to the individual. Personally my husband and I are quite happy having just celebrated our 6th wedding anniversary. He would be the first one to say he doesn't regret getting married for a second and being married had the benefit of getting him into the country faster as the government saw our reunion as more of a priority than say just a partner or common law partner. Why? Because a marriage is looked at as being more permanent because it is legally binding. So many people get married for the wrong reasons and yes that WILL end up affecting statistics. If I had married the guy I dated when I was 17 I would most certainly be divorced right now. Instead I waited until I met someone and married in my late 20s when I had finished school and felt like I had a better sense of self. I am certain we will be together for the rest of our lives because that's what we have both committed to and I believe in that. But nobody says you have to. You don't want to get married? Awesome. Find a woman who shares that value and you are golden. Or don't find a woman at all....totally your call. Nobody is saying you HAVE to do anything. Link to comment
superfan Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 The thing is common law is only considered when it is conjugal partnership or romantic partnership not roommates. So you can't divorce roomates. Common law is considered for romantic partners. Oh for sure - none of those letters were official government documents or anything....it was just funny to get them. To this day we still joke about our "marriage". Link to comment
Fudgie Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 My state doesn't grant common law and I'm SO happy about that. I'm fine with cohabitating but I think common law without being able to opt-out is utter crap. If people want the legal rights that come with marriage, they should get married, even if that means just going down to the courthouse and getting it done. But I think common law without an opt-out is bad because it forces all live-in couples under marital law without their consent. I don't know, I think marriage is worth it with the right couples, and not for others. I'm still really ambivalent about the whole thing, but I think that it's a very personal choice that shouldn't be taken lightly. I don't think you can base it on simple "Feelings" but rather, compatibility and shared goals and values. If you don't have those, you will most certainly fail. I don't know if I want to get married in the future, I oscillate between thinking "maybe I could tolerate it" to "No". Link to comment
Moontiger Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I think, mental for many people marriage carries more "weight". How many times have we seen threads from people who get cheated on only for their partner to tell then "we are not married so it doesn't matter". And I agree, once you remove, marriages that took place under family pressure (many cultures have long traditions of child brides), marriages that ended after less then a year, marriages where the two people keep break up and then remarrying, and divorced where something like physical violence was a factor, the ACTUAL divorce rate is probably well under 30%. Link to comment
PH Suite Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 In Canada not half of marriages end in divorce. The statistics are closer to 35%. False. "According to The Department of Justice, Child Support Initiative, and Evaluation Report of August 1997, the divorce rate in Canada is about 48%. What it means is, one marriage out of every two marriages end up in divorce. But remember that for many, divorces and marriages are repetitions. Some facts about the divorce rates in Canada •Almost 75% of Canadian divorces are being initiated by women. •One year after separation or divorce, 50% of children of divorced or separated families never see their fathers again. •First marriages have about a 50% chances of ending in divorce. The risk becomes greater with each successive marriage (about 72% for second, and about 85% for third marriages). " Link to comment
PH Suite Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Marriage can work, but I just don't think our current society really gives most a true picture of what a marriage entails or how to keep it alive. We just get told to buy a fancy dress and throw a big bash to have pretty pictures to show people later. And that's not what it's about at all. I skipped that fancy big wedding BTW, what's the point? Very well said! We're taught all kinds of totally useless crap in school, but nothing of emotional intelligence or how to maintain and develop any kind of relationship not just romantic. More time is spend browsing for a ring than is EVER spent working on communication in a marriage. More money is spent on invites to the wedding than is EVER spent on counselling or some other resource such as relationship workbooks to both sit down and work through. Ye reap as ye sew. Link to comment
Fudgie Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I believe the 48% divorce rate, absolutely. I think it's worth mentioning though that different demographics have higher or lower divorce rates. It's not 50% across the board in every single category, rather, it's an average. Marriages that happen between two people with college education or higher, without living in poverty, and are 30+ in age and it is their FIRST marriage have much lower divorce rates than other groups: -impoverished people (higher divorce rates, plus less likely to get married at all) -lack of formal education -marriages occurred when one or both of the partners were young (not children, I'm talking young adults) -one of the spouses becomes physically or mentally disabled (otherwise known as a "therapeutic divorce") Studies: Link to comment
PH Suite Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Unless you have children there is no threat to your future pay cheque. . I will agree that the law is a bit slow in changing. But the laws were there to protect women for when they did not work. The flow of the law does not keep up with society. HOWEVER, if you are cohabiting or married to someone and have no children whatsoever I cannot see your future pay cheques beyond divorce being tapped because she wants to sit on her bottom and eat bonbons. It doesn't really work that way. And if you lived together or are married BOTH of you contributed to the common good so you should share it equally. False again. Not only is there a massive threat to your past earnings, but future earnings can also be wasted in maintaining an undeserving shrew's "right to the lifestyle to which she's become accustomed". This is COMMON, only typically on a much smaller scale of course. Note these two were not even married. Oh, and if/when his career crashes he still owes her that much unless he spends a fortune petitioning the court for a reduction, because that figure isn't tied to his actual income. If he's injured and can't tour for a year, it's all purely out of pocket and he's million$ in the hole that year while she makes out like the bandit she is. Link to comment
Moontiger Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 False. "According to The Department of Justice, Child Support Initiative, and Evaluation Report of August 1997, the divorce rate in Canada is about 48%. What it means is, one marriage out of every two marriages end up in divorce. But remember that for many, divorces and marriages are repetitions. Some facts about the divorce rates in Canada •Almost 75% of Canadian divorces are being initiated by women. •One year after separation or divorce, 50% of children of divorced or separated families never see their fathers again. •First marriages have about a 50% chances of ending in divorce. The risk becomes greater with each successive marriage (about 72% for second, and about 85% for third marriages). " Is there anything more resent then 1997? That's pretty dated TBH. I'm on my phone or I would search and post findings. Again my understanding is that divorce rates spiked in the 90s but I would have to do more research to be sure. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.