Who here wants to get married and why?

[Urbanyst]

And as much as a lazy man you guys might find my ex husband to be, here is the thing. With regard to choosing a spouse, notice something. I chose a man who did NOT screw me over. He could have and he didn't.

My ex chose a woman (me) who also will NOT screw him over.

For all our faults and for the fact that the marriage failed, we both at our core are honorable people, not selfish ass holes. So we managed to choose wisely in that regard at the end of the day, both of us.

That is the point of the discussion ongoing between Guru and Augustus. That is what men need to understand. For good outcomes the choice you make in a spouse is CRITICAL. Even though we are divorced, my ex and I have a good outcome when all is said and done.

Did you really choose "wisely" or just get LUCKY?

A lot of you people give yourselves too much credit and act like you have magical powers to read minds and predict the future. I don't buy this crap. Stick to facts.

 

[Augustus_McCrae]

Augustus, contracts do not have to be written to be enforced. Contracts can be implied with the "meeting of the minds" as the litmus test. Accordingly, within a civil union, some examples of legal allegations can be:

• Ownership of the home and other assets (implied ownership);
• Distribution of the home and other assets (implied ownership);
• Hiding of jointly held assets (with joint being implied ownership);
  
• Compensation for employment opportunities and asset appreciation lost.

The above was contrived in a few seconds. If I were to research the jurisidictional case law, regarding these specific implied contracts, I could actually build a serious case against another.

Point is ... you are never protected from an egregious litigator, whether married or not. And thus choose carefully WHOM you enter into a marriage or civil union with.

To be clear, what is your definition of "civil union" here?

-Augustus-

 

[BeExcellent]

Did you really choose "wisely" or just get LUCKY?

A lot of you people give yourselves too much credit and act like you have magical powers to read mines and predict the future. I don't buy this crap. Stick to facts.

I looked for character as a very high priority. So did my ex. He and I both had other options when we got together but we had many similarities in the family background, values, religious beliefs and character department. Our families were congruent and both of us realized early on in dating that we had come across a potential marriage prospect. We both had other criteria, of course that was important but when you are picking for marriage character counts.

As should be obvious from my posts on this thread both my ex and I both STILL place a premium on family. We are both acting in the way that is most beneficial to the children we have together. Could he run off to another place, make more money, live as a player and spin women? Sure he could. Could I? Yup. But neither of us does that. Both of us put our family and children higher than ourselves. We are blood relatives now through our children. We are family. Married or divorced we are family.

In fact I think I'll take him to lunch

 

[guru1000]

To be clear, what is your definition of "civil union" here?

-Augustus-

A union that acts as a marriage would but lacks the state marriage license. And the frivolous (and In some cases not so frivolous) litigation I alluded to can occur outside of common-law marriage states.

 

[Urbanyst]

I looked for character as a very high priority. So did my ex. He and I both had other options when we got together but we had many similarities in the family background, values, religious beliefs and character department. Our families were congruent and both of us realized early on in dating that we had come across a potential marriage prospect. We both had other criteria, of course that was important but when you are picking for marriage character counts.

As should be obvious from my posts on this thread both my ex and I both STILL place a premium on family. We are both acting in the way that is most beneficial to the children we have together. Could he run off to another place, make more money, live as a player and spin women? Sure he could. Could I? Yup. But neither of us does that. Both of us put our family and children higher than ourselves. We are blood relatives now through our children. We are family. Married or divorced we are family.

In fact I think I'll take him to lunch

This level of analysis is no different than a sugar daddy choosing a sugar baby.

Sugar Daddy: "I have MONEY and want companionship and sex regularly"
Sugar Baby: : "I can give you companionship and sex and I need MONEY"

Its a match!

Finding a relationship where you are both on the same page AT THE TIME is easy as f*ck and I don't consider that to be choosing "wisely". I consider that to be common sense lol.

If the relationship continues for years and/or works out because you both STAY on the same page.. that is pure LUCK. That is not choosing wisely.

 

[Augustus_McCrae]

I looked for character as a very high priority. So did my ex. He and I both had other options when we got together but we had many similarities in the family background, values, religious beliefs and character department. Our families were congruent and both of us realized early on in dating that we had come across a potential marriage prospect. We both had other criteria, of course that was important but when you are picking for marriage character counts.

As should be obvious from my posts on this thread both my ex and I both STILL place a premium on family. We are both acting in the way that is most beneficial to the children we have together. Could he run off to another place, make more money, live as a player and spin women? Sure he could. Could I? Yup. But neither of us does that. Both of us put our family and children higher than ourselves. We are blood relatives now through our children. We are family. Married or divorced we are family.

In fact I think I'll take him to lunch

"...live as a player and spin women? Sure he could. Could I? Yup".

Finally , this thread gets interesting... Is there something you're not telling us BE? C'mon, don't hold back...

-Augustus-

 

[guru1000]

Very interesting sub-topic, which leads to us the counter-position of civil (non-marriage) unions:

Consider this: You meet a girl, convince her not to get married, but to live together and have children. One day thereafter, you buy a house, and place your name solely on the deed and mortgage of the house. The mortgage payment is $3,000 monthly. The other joint household expenses are $2,000 monthly. You and she agree because she lives there and gains the fruit of this lifestyle that she contribute $2,000 monthly toward the monthly expenditures. She gives you a check for $2,000 monthly and you deposit this check into your bank account from which you pay your mortgage.

10 years later, you and she break up. She brings a legal action, against you stating that you had both agreed that the house was jointly owned, but opted to keep her name off the deed and mortgage so you can both buy other properties' for investment reasons under her name, or she had potential litigious liability with XYZ so you both opted to keep her name off the deed for asset protection, or you and she had agreed to own the house together but since her credit score was lower, you both had agreed to keep her name off the mortgage (and deed as the originating lender required whoever is not on the mortgage cannot be on the deed) for a better interest rate. She requests the court to set aside the deed and create a new deed giving her 50% ownership--or that the court force the sale of the home and give her 50% of the net proceeds.

Now you have a legal action against you, evidence of monthly payments made to you, a 10-year relation with children, an alleged "marriage disguised as a civil union." Now the judge must render a decision based on case law, his personal bias, and the evidence.

Now let's say the judge rules for you. She now brings an appellate motion to stay the sale of the house, pending resolution of the "ownership" and the decision of the appellate court.

Now, after some time, the appellate court rules for you as well. She then commences a separate legal action alleging the the subject home was conditionally and jointly-owned by her due to your evasion of the "state marital law," and that you and she were in fact a "married" couple, and in the event the court finds you two were not legally married that the home ownership and sale is still subject to contention based on what serves the children's needs best--and that the court stay the sale of the home until this matter is properly adjudicated.

This matter can go and on ... for decades.

Point: Do not think because you did not sign a marriage license that you are protected from frivolous (and in some cases not so frivolous) litigation.

Choose your partner carefully.

 

[Tenacity]

Very interesting sub-topic, which leads to us the counter-position of civil (non-marriage) unions:

Consider this: You meet a girl, convince her not to get married, but to live together and have children. One day thereafter, you buy a house, and place your name solely on the deed and mortgage of the house. The mortgage payment is $3,000 monthly. The other joint household expenses are $2,000 monthly. You and she agree because she lives there and gains the fruit of this lifestyle that she contribute $2,000 monthly toward the monthly expenditures. She gives you a check for $2,000 monthly and you deposit this check into your bank account from which you pay your mortgage.

10 years later, you and she break up. She brings a legal action, against you stating that you had both agreed that the house was jointly owned, but opted to keep her name off the deed and mortgage so you can both buy other properties' for investment reasons under her name, or she had potential litigious liability with XYZ so you both opted to keep her name off the deed for asset protection, or you and she had agreed to own the house together but since her credit score was lower, you both had agreed to keep her name off the mortgage (and deed as the originating lender required whoever is not on the mortgage cannot be on the deed) for a better interest rate. She requests the court to set aside the deed and create a new deed giving her 50% ownership--or that the court force the sale of the home and give her 50% of the net proceeds.

Now you have a legal action against you, evidence of monthly payments made to you, a 10-year relation with children, an alleged "marriage disguised as a civil union." Now the judge must render a decision based on case law, his personal bias, and the evidence.

Now let's say the judge rules for you. She now brings an appellate motion to stay the sale of the house, pending resolution of the "ownership" and the decision of the appellate court.

Now, after some time, the appellate court rules for you as well. She then commences a separate legal action alleging the the subject home was conditionally and jointly-owned by her due to your evasion of the "state marital law," and that you and she were in fact a "married" couple, and in the event the court finds you two were not legally married that the home ownership and sale is still subject to contention based on what serves the children's needs best--and that the court stay the sale of the home until this matter is properly adjudicated.

This matter can go and on ... for decades.

Point: Do not think because you did not sign a marriage license that you are protected from frivolous (and in some cases not so frivolous) litigation.

Choose your partner carefully.

Guru, this isn't a good example because you are still entering into a legal contract. Marriage isn't the only legal contract you can have with a woman.

- Marriage
- Cohabitation
- Civil Unions
- Child Custody

These are the four legal contracts you can enter into with a woman, all of which subject you in some form or fashion, to the out of control, inefficient, Family Court Laws.

Your entire message of "choosing your partner carefully" has extreme limitations as the person she is in 2017 will NOT be the person she is in 2027 when all hell breaks loose. So extreme filtering in this case only works for the time being, while she is still the person she is (or still the person she's pretending to be).

My overall message is this...........entering into ANY legal relationship/contract today is dangerous due to our new dating market forces. With social media, online dating, texting, and the fact that men/women no longer need each other for survival and ALL relationships today are founded on convenience, entertainment, and preference, this makes ALL legal relationships very dangerous as you enter the relationship with a long term focus, but the person can literally LEAVE you at any time, for any reason, or NO reason.

I can't tell anybody on this website what to do, you are all adults. My message is just to actually think about what the hell you are doing before you do any of this stuff and do not allow society, the church, etc., to shame you into doing something that legally makes no damn sense. Also do your own research. Take what I've said, what Guru said, what @BeExcellent said, what @Urbanyst said, and what others have said and see how it applies to YOUR life.

 

[guru1000]

Tenacity:

Marriage = Legal Contract
Cohabitation =Not a legal contract, in non-common law states (40+ states)
Civil Unions= Not a legal contract, in non-common law states (40+ states)
Child Custody=Legal Contract

Just as a deed is a contract of ownership, even such a deed can be set aside with compelling legal arguments and contrived evidence.

The point, which you apparently missed, is that you don't need a legal contract to be subject to the law. "Implied contracts" are enforceable, and any litigator well versed in the law has a potentiality to present evidence and legal arguments in a manner to demonstrate there was an implied agreement. And this can take place outside of family court.

 

[BeExcellent]

Why haven't you remarried?

As I've noted repeatedly I do not expect to remarry. The financial risk to me is too high given my current moral obligations to my children and myself and my ex spouse. I am seeing a man who I am enjoying getting to know and who is himself financially independent and has grown children. If things progress over time I would be happy in a LTR with him and so far I think the same could be said about him where I'm concerned. We both appreciate a bit of space and autonomy. Stay tuned. But marriage again? Highly unlikely. I already am done with having babies and I'm financially self-sufficient. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Any type of LTR I get into is going to grow slowly, go slowly and progress in a steady way. I'm not in a hurry and can afford to be patient.

I actually was dating someone I really enjoyed for about 18 months but he is still embroiled in a hellish custody battle with his very rich and seriously crazy ex-wife, and we agreed that was really more drama than necessary. I heard from him just the other day and he's hanging tough but still dealing with all the court stuff, which is awful, nasty and requires all his emotional bandwidth. I am so grateful I never had that sort of mess to deal with.

My message is just to actually think about what the hell you are doing before you do any of this stuff and do not allow society, the church, etc., to shame you into doing something that legally makes no damn sense. Also do your own research. Take what I've said, what Guru said, what @BeExcellent said, what @Urbanyst said, and what others have said and see how it applies to YOUR life.

I agree with this 100%. You cannot totally avoid risk in life, but you can get educated about risk and to a great degree you can manage risk. Everything you do has risk. Life is dangerous and none of us are getting out alive. So we may as well accept some risks and get on with it.

To be honest I shudder at the risk the ONS/STR lifestyle has from a health standpoint. I have no intention of exposing myself to heaven knows what sort of STDs, including stuff that can kill you like HIV/AIDS or even HPV if it develops into cancer. Yikes. And the more exposure you have to partner after partner the higher and higher your risk of exposure goes. To me that is NOT an acceptable risk profile for the rest of my life were I to just so STRs and so forth. It's not smart.

"...live as a player and spin women? Sure he could. Could I? Yup".

Finally , this thread gets interesting.

There are constraints on both of us due to geographic location. I still travel for business (I have a home in a secondary location where I work for a long term client and where I am exploring the real estate markets for potential future investment) and this affords me more dating opportunities than my ex has (although he dates some). I don't date when I'm local to my children, as I'm doing stuff with the kids. Granted my ex would like me back...where is he going to find someone like me? He isn't more than likely although he is still quite smooth with women and he does not lack for female interest. He has said repeatedly he is NEVER planning to get married or legally entangled with anyone else ever again. Will he? Who knows. Depends on the women he comes across.

 

[guru1000]

Umm.. just because a marriage doesn't END.. that doesn't make it "successful" or happy.

How do you define a "successful marriage"? I would love to know lol.

I know a married couple where the husband sleeps in the basement. There is no sex and no love. The woman goes to church every week and is "traditional" born in Asia LOL. She wants a divorce but the guy doesn't want to lose his house and kids.

Doesn't make "it" happy, correct.

But in terms of what we are discussing, specifically, ways one can get railroaded in a divorce proceeding, "success" in this context would be not divorced or financially railroaded.

As to being "happy" in a marriage, that's another discussion altogether. I was married once. And divorced. Although I didn't have the highs as I do being single, I would say that my overall sense of well being or "happiness" was higher than where it is today, on average. I can't speak for those who are married, and I wouldn't even know to gauge the happiness of men who are married to use it as a statistic to be compared to the happiness of those who are unmarried.

Just remember, for every unhappy married guy is another average frustrated chump.

 

[Urbanyst]

Doesn't make "it" happy, correct.

But in terms of what we are discussing, specifically, ways one can get railroaded in a divorce proceeding, "success" in this context would be not divorced or financially railroaded.

As to being "happy" in a marriage, that's another discussion altogether. I was married once. And divorced. Although I didn't have the highs as I do being single, I would say that my overall sense of well being or "happiness" was higher than where it is today, on average. I can't speak for those who are married, and I wouldn't even know to gauge the happiness of men who are married to use it as a statistic to be compared to the happiness of those who are unmarried.

You should not need to depend on a WOMAN or a Government CONTRACT to be happy in your life.

If what you are telling me is you cannot really be HAPPY in your life without a heterosexual relationship sanctioned by a Government CONTRACT.. I think the solution is more related to therapy or medication than the VALUE of marriage itself lol.

 

[guru1000]

You should not need to depend on a WOMAN or a Government CONTRACT to be happy in your life.

If what you are telling me is you cannot really be HAPPY in your life without a heterosexual relationship sanctioned by a Government CONTRACT I think the solutioned is more related to therapy or medication than the VALUE of marriage itself lol.

Never said you did. This is your claim.

 

[Urbanyst]

Never said you did. This is your claim.

Its not my claim.

Its the only argument you have presented so far that supports marriage. You are suggesting you were more "happy" married.. and therefore.. marriage is better than a long-term girlfriend.

The question has remained.. what is the benefit of the CONTRACT vs. just dating someone? The arguments you and others have presented consisted of:

1. Because she says so
2. Because without the CONTRACT I am less happy
3. Because chasing women gets old (as if you can't have a LTR without marriage)

These are child-like sesame street arguments in my personal opinion.

 

[guru1000]

Its not my claim.

Its the only argument you have presented so far that supports marriage. You are suggesting you were more "happy" married.. and therefore.. marriage is better than a long-term girlfriend

I stated that my overall sense of well being was higher while I was married.

I did not state for this reason marriage is better than an LTR. Hence, this is your claim.

The question has remained.. what is the benefit of the CONTRACT vs. just dating someone? The arguments you and others have presented consisted of:

1. Because she says so
2. Because without the CONTRACT I am less happy
3. Because chasing women gets old (as if you can't have a LTR without marriage)

These are child-like sesame street arguments in my personal opinion.

Define what you mean by "just dating someone" and I will respond.

 

[guru1000]

#4 Tenancy by the Entirety/Community Property with right of survivorship

Just title it, "Joint tenants with rights of survivorship " instead. No marriage necessary

 

[guru1000]

You lose quite a bit of creditor protection there

Title is under an LLC with operating agreement stating that upon death of a member, all ownership of LLC is designated to ..."

Paranoid about creditors and need more asset protection, title the asset under an LLC which is trustee of a trust with trust bylaws stating the above.

 

[Cactus]

Wait...So we have a divorced ex-con A.K.A Jewru1000 and BeExcellent A.K.A. BeDivorced who claim to be "too busy" in life posting scroll bombs of pro-marriage replies all day. Makes perfect sense on SS.

 

[Tenacity]

Define what you mean by "just dating someone" and I will respond.

Lol, you know exactly what he's talking about Guru. Why always play the semantics game?

He's not an ambitious man, which I didn't see when we married (he appeared to be).

Perfect example of how it's impossible to "filter" upfront. People either change or people either flat out put out FALSE FRONTS in order to dupe you into thinking they are somebody that they aren't. That's why Guru's entire "choose wisely" campaign is fruitless.

You cannot totally avoid risk in life, but you can get educated about risk and to a great degree you can manage risk. Everything you do has risk. Life is dangerous and none of us are getting out alive. So we may as well accept some risks and get on with it.

Lol, I completely understand that life has risks, but this doesn't justify jumping in a snake pit because, oh well, life has risks so just get on with it. It doesn't justify jumping in front of a bus. It doesn't justify getting completely drunk then getting on the highway driving 120 miles an hour. Yes, life has risks, but that doesn't justify you walking into a completely inefficient business contract which can set you back financially.

To be honest I shudder at the risk the ONS/STR lifestyle has from a health standpoint. I have no intention of exposing myself to heaven knows what sort of STDs, including stuff that can kill you like HIV/AIDS or even HPV if it develops into cancer. Yikes. And the more exposure you have to partner after partner the higher and higher your risk of exposure goes. To me that is NOT an acceptable risk profile for the rest of my life were I to just so STRs and so forth. It's not smart.

Do you know how many married people catch STDs from their spouses (who are still sleeping around)? A lot of people. Plus, again, one can just get into an LTR, they don't have to be a wh0re like Tenacity and sleep around with multiple women.

And as much as a lazy man you guys might find my ex husband to be, here is the thing. With regard to choosing a spouse, notice something. I chose a man who did NOT screw me over. He could have and he didn't..

That "man" is sitting on his a.ss right now collecting money off of your hard work, properties, and other business projects.......not having to do anything and he's set for life.

You aren't convincing anybody here (nor yourself) that he didn't screw you over. You got completely screwed over. You just got away with not getting screwed over as "much". Like I said, it's like you saying you didn't get screwed when someone breaks into your house and "only" takes the TV, but didn't take the jewelry and clothes hanging in the closet. You still LOST.

Tenacity is not interested in busting his a.ss, coming from homelessness, just to GIVE MY MONEY AWAY to some lazy chick because the US Government said so. There's no way in the world anybody can justify that as a "win" just because, well, I could have been required to pay $5,000 a month but I only get to pay $3,000 a month

 

[guru1000]

Perfect example of how it's impossible to "filter" upfront. People either change or people either flat out put out FALSE FRONTS in order to dupe you into thinking they are somebody that they aren't. That's why Guru's entire "choose wisely" campaign is fruitless.

People can change <> People are likely to change

When in extreme positions, you often fail to acknowledge that in most instances matters will fall somewhere in the middle. And there are degrees of risk in any choice that you make. So stack the chips in your favor and make smarter choices with whom you share your time.

But since you like to use extreme positions, let me leave you with one: What are you going to do in a civil, non-marital union when your ex could sue you in a Supreme Court, not family court, for your assets that she never had an interest in? Certainly a possibility, right? So what are you going to do now, bang only hookers? But the hooker could sue for monies promised but never delivered.

Best to remain celibate.