Cohabiting couples to win legal rights if relations break down

[MatureDJ]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-win-legal-rights-relations-break-down.html

Britain's two million cohabiting couples are to be given legal rights to claim a share of property and income when the relationship breaks down.

Unmarried couples could be ordered to sell their homes, pay lump sums to each other or share pensions if they split under controversial Government reforms.

So tell me again what is the purpose of marriage?

 

[puma183]

Wait didn't this just get voted-in in Australia only a week ago? I mean we even have a thread for it on this very MM board. So it spread from AUS to UK in one week. How long before it hits the US and Canada?

Men dump your LTR's now, at least the ones past the 2 year mark!!! Otherwise don't blame us after you get summoned to appear in family court and have your bank accounts frozen by your LTR's lawyer.

 

[window]

Yes I'm changing my name to 23 months. Any relationship longer than that and you need to get a cohabitation agreement drawn up to protect your assets regardless if you are living under the same roof or not. If you don't then you are a fool waiting to be parted with his money.

 

[jophil28]

Yes I'm changing my name to 23 months. Any relationship longer than that and you need to get a cohabitation agreement drawn up to protect your assets regardless if you are living under the same roof or not. If you don't then you are a fool waiting to be parted with his money.

This gets scarier. It seems that there are eight criteria to define a "defacto relationship" and being in a sexual relationship (or not ) is NOt one of them .
I will research some more and post back. Expect this crap to come your way soon, cousins.

 

[Hooligan Harry]

It is nothing short of absurd. Why even BOTHER with this crap these days? Its such a huge risk financially. Gone are the days of emotional stress. Now we need to worry about them taking us to the cleaners even when we are not married?

Nah man. The more I see this in action the more I think its seriously time to start considering early retirement in some South American village. This has become a free for all on men. Its going to reach the stage where you will need a contract just to go on a date these days

 

[ketostix]

This gets scarier. It seems that there are eight criteria to define a "defacto relationship" and being in a sexual relationship (or not ) is NOt one of them .
I will research some more and post back. Expect this crap to come your way soon, cousins.

It the same logical they use with self-defense is not a criterion for the right to own a gun. This is what liberal governments do, they make it pointless to have a gun, a wife, etc. When will people ever learn it's all about taking away rights and freedom and the gov. having all the power and money so they can give it to women or any other favored party member group.

 

[squirrels]

After reading more about this, the criterion of "living together for 2 years" makes this law actually make a LOT of sense.

If you live with a woman for two years, even if you're not married to her, you may as well be. It makes me sick to see so-called "men" living with women long-term. It's no more than an excuse to be non-committal...and in most cases they have cars together, dogs together, joint accounts...it's just as binding as a marriage. You may as well be legally coupled.

I personally don't even believe the government should recognize marriage in this day and age. No marriage licenses, no tax breaks, nothing. Marriage should be a religious or spiritual bond. But that's just me.

Here's my take on it...Aussies are communists anyway. They have no concepts of individuality or civil rights. But if you are living with a woman for TWO YEARS without being married to her, you're either 1) an AFC fool getting taken advantage of, or 2) a coward afraid of commitment and responsibility. Sh!t or get off the pot.

I have no sympathy. You NEVER let a woman "get a hold of you". You don't move in with a woman until you're ready to commit to her and marry her and be a couple. You let a woman get her hooks in you like that, you get what you deserve.

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear Hooligan Harry,
The reason that these laws are made is the constant lobbying by self serving Lawyers and Womens groups....Your Going South of the Border just makes it that much easier for them.....In this Country progress against these Draconian Laws is making headway mainly through the efforts of A Lone Fathers Association,headed by a self taught middle aged lawyer....this whole thing is the result of guys refusing to marry,thereby putting themselves beyond the law....Do not however feel,well I might as well get married as cohabit,the burden of proof is much heavier if you are De Facto,and I am advised that if you enjoy visiting privileges it is very hard indeed to pin you down...As for two years,be that as it may,in reality after six months living with you in this country a Woman may claim De Facto rights....A Gentleman of my casual acquaintance,went to the Ukraine and chose a friend from a number that a Dating agency offered for his perusal....A Honey 12 years his junior,tall,blonde,blue eyes,gorgeous body.....To cut a long story short she moved in with him,after the six months had gone she slapped a Domestic Violence Order on him(You can get one if your Man just lifts his voice to you) then changed the locks....Even though it was his house,it took him A$16.000 legal costs and 18 months to get back in his own house(Her legal costs were paid by the State)...when she left,she took every stick of furniture and effects,the wall to wall carpet,the light fittings (Just ripped from ceilings and walls)and even dug up the roses in the garden....Turns out that she had been coached in her rights by the dating agency.

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear Squirrels,
Your comments on Aussies being Communists is ludicrous and an insult to the fine Men lying under the grass as a direct result of being your Countries best friend fighting communism in Korea,Malaya,Vietnam and Borneo....not to mention those fighting with your Great Nation in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[squirrels]

Dear Squirrels,
Your comments on Aussies being Communists is ludicrous and an insult to the fine Men lying under the grass as a direct result of being your Countries best friend fighting communism in Korea,Malaya,Vietnam and Borneo....not to mention those fighting with your Great Nation in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sorry...I meant to say "socialists", I guess. When you censor the Internet like China, ban individual ownership of firearms, and now the government is trying to screw people into cohabitation contracts to "spread the wealth", I see socialism.

It happens in my country too from time to time, but not to the same degree. Not yet, fortunately. And yes, it IS a disgrace to all the men who have fought against it.

I can't say more without getting into a political discussion, and political discussions are apparently not liked on this forum. You may not believe in a socialist system, but if that's the case, I suggest you keep your eyes open to what your leaders are doing to you.

One day men like you and I will have a choice to make.

 

[Jeffst1980]

What a terrible piece of legislation. As if the courts aren't already inundated with enough frivolous claims.

I understand the premise of "safeguarding" children born of an unmarried couple, but I have to think that the potential for abuse of these laws is just too great. Furthermore, if you really want to "safeguard" these children, how about you stop encouraging couples to have kids out of wedlock by providing such a failsafe legal recourse for reckless behavior?

Kids that come from messed up homes face nearly insurmountable odds of growing up well-adjusted. If you want your kid to grow up right, you better be prepared to raise them in a stable environment, despite any selfish concerns for your self. The single parent family is not a good model, and laws like this one only serve to make them more lucrative.

At least there will be far fewer guys making the mistake of moving in with their girlfriends....hopefully.

 

[jophil28]

Sorry...I meant to say "socialists",
.

OK, you are forgiven . All good.

And you are right about the creeping socialism which has infected our country. I see it daily and sadly feel it's insidious influence and find myself shaking my head at the apathy.

In my state we have a leftie state govt which runs the public education system.
Christmas celebrations and the hanging of decorations on campus are barred this year because " this may offend non-Christians" .

SEcondly in this state I now have to join a gun club, pay $40 and apply to the local PD for a license to own a RIFLE even if it is a hunting rifle or even a target shooting weapon.

 

[Bible_Belt]

I have moved in with several women and always come out of it ok. I just recently moved in with my current gf. We are very happy together, but are in no rush to get married mostly because both of us are recently divorced. Sometimes cohabitation does work out.

 

[ketostix]

Sometimes cohabitation does work out.

Yeah it works for now until the liberals brainwash and facilitate women to shake down men they cohabitate with.

 

[Hooligan Harry]

Sorry...I meant to say "socialists", I guess. When you censor the Internet like China, ban individual ownership of firearms, and now the government is trying to screw people into cohabitation contracts to "spread the wealth", I see socialism.

It happens in my country too from time to time, but not to the same degree. Not yet, fortunately. And yes, it IS a disgrace to all the men who have fought against it.

I can't say more without getting into a political discussion, and political discussions are apparently not liked on this forum. You may not believe in a socialist system, but if that's the case, I suggest you keep your eyes open to what your leaders are doing to you.

One day men like you and I will have a choice to make.

A few things to consider

1) Gun ownership and the right to bear arms is something that only Americans really want. I have seen enough gun violence in my life not to want to have one. Its a vile piece of evil. Its rarely used for protection. When I moved to Australia it was great to hear that guns are illegal.

2) The clampdown is on piracy and porn. Like it or not, piracy costs jobs and porn needs to be reigned in. These are not bad things. China is censoring western newspapers. Australia is trying to cut back the access to porn and pirated software/music/videos. I dont understand why people are upset about this. I say bring it on.

3) This socialist country scores higher then the USA in almost every single economic, quality of life and humanity index there is. While countries like Sweden, Denmark and Australia have clear gender issues these days the one thing they provide is an excellent standard of living and quality of life for their people.

4) Socialism has little to do with the spread of feminism guys. Eastern European women are very traditional. They lived in countries that were outright communist. Its not socialism that is the problem. Its the philosophical understanding and view we take on basic liberties we feel people should have. The problem is that sometimes certain liberties are impractical. Hence the reason why we sit with the social issues we do.

 

[ketostix]

A few things to consider

1) Gun ownership and the right to bear arms is something that only Americans really want. I have seen enough gun violence in my life not to want to have one. Its a vile piece of evil. Its rarely used for protection. When I moved to Australia it was great to hear that guns are illegal.

2) The clampdown is on piracy and porn. Like it or not, piracy costs jobs and porn needs to be reigned in. These are not bad things. China is censoring western newspapers. Australia is trying to cut back the access to porn and pirated software/music/videos. I dont understand why people are upset about this. I say bring it on.

3) This socialist country scores higher then the USA in almost every single economic, quality of life and humanity index there is. While countries like Sweden, Denmark and Australia have clear gender issues these days the one thing they provide is an excellent standard of living and quality of life for their people.

4) Socialism has little to do with the spread of feminism guys. Eastern European women are very traditional. They lived in countries that were outright communist. Its not socialism that is the problem. Its the philosophical understanding and view we take on basic liberties we feel people should have. The problem is that sometimes certain liberties are impractical. Hence the reason why we sit with the social issues we do.

Well the U.S. had it's greatest prosperity during a time of little socialism and little gun control. It really started here in the late 60's and has been down hill since. The U.S. is not a homogenous culture like E. Europe or Scandanavia. You cannot separate out the loss of freedom and rights, feminism, ethnocentiricism and gun control from socialism anymore than you could separate unfairness and inequality from capitalism.

You cannot say socialism and gun control brings only good and capitalism and freedom only brings bad for the purposes of the U.S or any similar places. It's not that simple and more importantly it's not how it works in practicality. If some countries want to become socialist and have basically totalitarian governments fine, but that doesn't mean they all should.

We had socially responsible capitalism in the U.S from the 30's to the 70's and people chose and worked against it, choosing to reward either the wealthy non-producers or cheap labor in china. Socialism of today has nothing to do with fair economics. All we really need is more fair economic policies with the financials and to fairly reward performance from work. We definitely don't need government control of rights and even speech and thought and personal relationships that socialism brings.

 

[squirrels]

A few things to consider

1) Gun ownership and the right to bear arms is something that only Americans really want. I have seen enough gun violence in my life not to want to have one. Its a vile piece of evil. Its rarely used for protection. When I moved to Australia it was great to hear that guns are illegal.

2) The clampdown is on piracy and porn. Like it or not, piracy costs jobs and porn needs to be reigned in. These are not bad things. China is censoring western newspapers. Australia is trying to cut back the access to porn and pirated software/music/videos. I dont understand why people are upset about this. I say bring it on.

3) This socialist country scores higher then the USA in almost every single economic, quality of life and humanity index there is. While countries like Sweden, Denmark and Australia have clear gender issues these days the one thing they provide is an excellent standard of living and quality of life for their people.

4) Socialism has little to do with the spread of feminism guys. Eastern European women are very traditional. They lived in countries that were outright communist. Its not socialism that is the problem. Its the philosophical understanding and view we take on basic liberties we feel people should have. The problem is that sometimes certain liberties are impractical. Hence the reason why we sit with the social issues we do.

See, there's the crux of the whole attitude..."certain liberties are impractical".

They're not impractical. They're inconvenient for a government that wants to impose its will on its citizens. Our prez George Dubya Bush argued that "certain liberties were impractical" when he passed the PATRIOT act, allowing secret trials, warrantless wiretaps, and holding suspected "terrorists" indefinitely without charging them. Those rights were "impractical" because they got in the way of our defense of so-called "terrorism".

Why do you need your GOVERNMENT to provide a high standard of living for you? Be a man and make your OWN life.

The money that provides your "high standard of living" is coming from the blood and sweat of people who were more brilliant and hard-working than you were. Or did you think your government just fabricated wealth out of thin air?

That's the problem today...governments punish great men by taking from them and giving to lesser men. Since there are more of these lesser men, the government stays in power and these beta-males rely on government-imposed standards to take from the alphas what the alphas worked hard to achieve. Darwinism is short-circuited and we lose touch with what makes us human...our masculinity. But our lazy, self-indulgent culture doesn't care.

This law is just another example. Weak-willed women getting clowned by men who live with them but don't marry them. Those women DESERVE what they get for being put in that situation. Yet the government comes along and marries them by default. Beta-males will use this too. Girl doesn't want to marry them? All they have to do is move in with her for 2 years and they can claim de facto union. Most beta males claim de facto union after 2 MONTHS.

One day when your leaders "level the playing field", the family unit is dissolved, the wealth is spread evenly among everyone so everyone is equally poor, and you're standing in some bread-line begging the government to save your "standard of living", you'll wish you'd taken responsibility for your own life instead of letting Big Brother take care of you. You'll wish you hadn't let go of all those "impractical rights" in exchange for sedate comfort.

If not you, then your great grandchildren. But you'll be dead, so what do you care? Me first, baby!

For all people talk about masculinity and self-improvement and alpha-male-ism, it's interesting to see how they REALLY feel when it comes to personal responsibility. It's things like that that make me wish we'd have a Deep Impact event, that make me ashamed not only of my gender, but of the human race in general.

The creation of "de facto unions", the subversion of pornography, feminism...all aimed at neutering the sacred masculine, at destroying human sexuality. Do you know why? Because sexual energy isn't predictable, thus it isn't controllable. The same energy that drives men to want to hump women is transmuted into man's spirit of independence, his willingness to fight for a better world for his wife and kids, for example. Read Napoleon Hill to learn more about "sexual transmutation". That energy is too much of a liability for the government, so they try to reign it in. Without it, human behavior is predictable. If it can be predicted, it can be measured. If it can be measured, it can be controlled.

But go ahead and sell your brains AND your balls to the gubment if it means you don't have to work as hard to enjoy a comfortable (not happy, but comfortable) lifestyle. Go ahead and read 48 Laws of Power and think that power comes from how much you "kiss up to master". But I don't want to hear you whining on here about the buzzing sensation in the back of your head that something is wrong, or that women don't respond to your neutered excuse for an "alpha male" persona. Why do you think people have so much trouble finding love or even sex in today's society, where our governments, our media, and our entire way of life turns us into virtual eunuchs?

 

[STR8UP]

If you live with a woman for two years, even if you're not married to her, you may as well be. It makes me sick to see so-called "men" living with women long-term. It's no more than an excuse to be non-committal...and in most cases they have cars together, dogs together, joint accounts...it's just as binding as a marriage. You may as well be legally coupled..........But if you are living with a woman for TWO YEARS without being married to her, you're either 1) an AFC fool getting taken advantage of, or 2) a coward afraid of commitment and responsibility. Sh!t or get off the pot.

Dude, I don't think you realize what you are saying. It sounds an awful lot like feminist shaming.

"Sh!t or get off the pot"? Why do you think men don't want to sh!t? Because in America today, that's when the woman OWNS a mans balls.

If a man chooses to be with one woman why does he NEED marriage to legitimize it? What benefit is in it for him? That is not AFC....that is actually ALPHA behavior. Woman pushes for marriage, but man recognizes that it isn't in his best interest.

I'm not saying that every man who is living with a woman out of wedlock is alpha, but his "non-committal" behavior is. Falling victim to societal pressure or ESPECIALLY pressure from his SO is about the most AFC move a man can make.

 

[squirrels]

The question inherent is, "WTF are you doing living with a woman for two years who you're not married to?"

That IS some bullsh!t...living with a woman you're not married to for that amount of time. I don't care how you stack it.

"Non-committal" behavior is not "alpha". It indicates failure to make a decision, instead letting the government or life in general make the decision for you. An alpha controls his OWN destiny.

Don't shack up with a woman you don't intend to marry. It can't end well for you...with or without "de facto union" laws.

 

[puma183]

Don't shack up with a woman you don't intend to marry. It can't end well for you...with or without "de facto union" laws.

Why marry at all in today's legal environment? It's the best known enabler of one way transfer of wealth. Have you ever googled "no-fault alimony"? That's the alimony you pay to your wife and her lover after you catch them cheating on your livingroom floor. It starts after you get kicked out with a divorce petition by wifey, a restraining order filing that now comes standard with every woman's "divorce packet" from her lawfirm, and wifey and loverboy start living there in the very house YOU built. Meanwhile you live under a bridge and send them monthly checks to maintain their lifestyle. If you stop complying with this arrangement, a contempt-order against you is issued, you get picked up by the cops via a bench warrant, and you get put in prison. There is not a thing you can do about it. It's no one's fault you see ... the law is the law. These laws got legislated in place by feminist activists in the 1970s and 80s while we were all sleeping. It takes away your human rights ... but only if you are male and married.

You think I am kidding? Here is what happened to one guy recently; from the pages of the American Bar Association Journal no less:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/former_big_firm_lawyer_now_unemployed_still_on_the_hook_for_alimony/

So tell me, why marry at all?