/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>548444

Here's your (((you)))

>>548444

Now make the same bonobo argument without it being argumentum ad naturam

then we can talk

otherwise I'm just gonna throw my feces in your face and declare myself the winner

>>548454

but anon, that's not MY argument, it's THEIRS

>>548444

Corrections based on actual law

>prenub parts in the future might just be ignored, when some future goverment will just change marriage again, prenubs already are pretty worthless

It's "prenup" as in prenuptial, from "pre" meaning before and "nuptial" meaning marriage. Geeze. Also, they're rarely ignored if the legal formalities are actually followed which, almost invariably, they are not.

>allow your wife to live independent of you, but still dependent on your money, if she leaves you, which is a complete reversal of the natural order.

Or vice-versa. If the woman was the one who had the money (through inheritance, etc.) the man was left high and dry. Male alimony is a thing, I had clients get it rewarded. It's a pretty straight equation these days.

>no fault divorce means that she can break the contract by for example cheating on you, but it doesn't count legally.

On both sides. It used to be if a male cheated, he'd have to pay shit more to at divorce. Here I agree with you - at-fault divorce was better but, now we're in a godless society so…

>the law about martial rape that if she wants to, she can accuse you of rape and the fact that she is your wife will not be considered for the accusation

If your wife wants to accuse you of rape you're a fucking bastard. Not saying you raped her but, damn, what did you do to your wife?

>you automatically are the father for every kid she births and you need her consent for a parternity test

Nope. You only need her consent if you're already divorced and she has custody. You can take your kid in for a blood test any day. Most places won't let you challenge paternity after the kid is 2 though, biology notwithstanding.

>if she leaves you, she not only gets to continue to live dependent on you, but she also gets half of your stuff, even if she didn't have anything to do with it

Not true. In community property states she is entitled to nothing you owned before marriage, though keeping pictures/inventory/records or evidence is a good idea. In common law states equitable division rarely means 50/50, if you can prove you entered the relationship with greater assets, you will leave with greater assets.

>the definition of marriage has changed so much that it's purely a legal construct and doesn't represent the most ancient social institution at all anymore

Sure. True.

>this all doesn't even take into account any children you might have had with the women and how the courts and goverments favour the mother in most case

This is my biggest bone to pick. I've watched a lot of divorce/custody hearings. I've never seen a judicial preference toward women. What I have seen is tons of hearings where men didn't show up and the woman won by default, and a bunch where male bravado made him think he could win without a lawyer and the woman's lawyer trounced him. When both sides had lawyers, or both sides appeared and didn't have lawyers, the custody split was invariably 50/50 if the judge decided.

i.e. men suck at participating in the judicial system and then blame it on systemic bias that isn't there.

I hate MGTOW

>>548458

>If your wife wants to accuse you of rape you're a fucking bastard. Not saying you raped her but, damn, what did you do to your wife?

Maybe he had a fat check of around 10,000$+ and his wife wanted that as payment for "emotional support"?

>>548458

Anon please. I am not from the United Burgermutts.

>Also, they're rarely ignored if the legal formalities are actually followed which, almost invariably, they are not.

My country literally has a guideline, which says that if it's unfair the prenup will get thrown out of the window.

>Or vice-versa. If the woman was the one who had the money (through inheritance, etc.) the man was left high and dry. Male alimony is a thing, I had clients get it rewarded. It's a pretty straight equation these days.

Anon … marriage its traditional sense was always a way so a woman can be protected and cared for during pregnancy, which makes her physically disabled.

The genders aren't equal. The natural order is that the man provides for the woman, not the other way around. Even today most women, ESPECIALLY mothers work part-time.

So don't give me this gender equality bullshit.

>On both sides. It used to be if a male cheated, he'd have to pay shit more to at divorce.

Again. The woman cheating is a lot worse. If you look at statistics like 10-20% of children are the results of (literal) cuckoldry. Probably higher in France, where it's now a national right to cuckold your husband.

>If your wife wants to accuse you of rape you're a fucking bastard. Not saying you raped her but, damn, what did you do to your wife?

I was thinking more about what if she is evil and wants to destroy your life and in the context of divorce.

>You can take your kid in for a blood test any day.

In the US maybe, but not in Germany, France or other european countries. This will not fly in the courts.

>Not true. In community property states she is entitled to nothing you owned before marriage

yeah, with a prenup + if the courts deem the prenup was made under the appropiate conditions

>This is my biggest bone to pick. I've watched a lot of divorce/custody hearings. I've never seen a judicial preference toward women.

Just look at the fucking statistics. Again I don't live in Burgerfatmania. You probably have seen a tons of minorities, homeschooled idiots, etc skew your perception.

I try to not be racist against you burgers, but you provoke me!

>>548458

>This is my biggest bone to pick. I've watched a lot of divorce/custody hearings. I've never seen a judicial preference toward women. What I have seen is tons of hearings where men didn't show up and the woman won by default, and a bunch where male bravado made him think he could win without a lawyer and the woman's lawyer trounced him. When both sides had lawyers, or both sides appeared and didn't have lawyers, the custody split was invariably 50/50 if the judge decided.

Just gonna jump in here and disagree with this blurb. My mother did some shit where she falsely accused my dad of assault to get an order of protection, because that is taken into consideration with custody. Each time a custody battle came up, she did that, and each time, she won.

That is, until the cases came before a female judge who saw through what my mom was doing, but by then I was 13 - And my mom had been doing that since I was 2.

>>548462

>I try to not be racist against you burgers

>Burgermutts

>Burgerfatmania

wew did an American steal your girlfriend or something?

>>548458

>Not saying you raped her but, damn, what did you do to your wife?

>being falsely accused of rape means the man still must have done something

Listen and believe, right?

>>548467

>Just gonna jump in here and disagree with this blurb. My mother did some shit where she falsely accused my dad of assault to get an order of protection, because that is taken into consideration with custody. Each time a custody battle came up, she did that, and each time, she won.

>That is, until the cases came before a female judge who saw through what my mom was doing, but by then I was 13 - And my mom had been doing that since I was 2.

I'm not saying you didn't have a bad judge. But wait- you're presenting ad hoc evidence of a single account versus 100s of cases of seen while waiting to be heard.

I've sat in a number of court rooms, with a number of judges, and seen the countless rotation of judges. On the whole, my statement is true.

I've heard of corrupt judges in small backwaters, but I worked in a large urban area. Also, orders of protection are very hard to get if the man actually shows up and disputes the facts- I've watched a lot of those cases too and they're routinely denied except that, 2 outta 3 times, the man doesn't show up.

>>548474

No, I mean, how do you piss off a woman that much that once loved you. I mean, I've pissed off exes, but never once have they accused me of that. I also don't go out with crazies though…

>>548462

I'll admit I don't know about Europe's laws, they might be crazy. I dunno.

Still, none of your stuff applies in America and I live in a very liberal jurisdiction.

Also, why on Earth are you wrongly trying to comment on my statement of "community property states" if you live in Europe. You don't have any- that's an exclusively American thing (that we borrowed from old Spanish civil law which, as far as I know isn't in operation now)

Again, MGTOW is stupid, and you're equally ignorant for being so angry about this. If you don't like it, go start a political movement, but your exaggerations about the state of the law, at least in America, are deplorable.

>>548444

>marriage as a legal construct rather than a covenant with God

>relationships as contracts rather than expressions of love

>materialism rather than spiritualism

If either the man or woman sees the relationship as the above, then there is a dysfunction. Marriage cannot survive without a spiritual undercurrent that ties the two together regardless of the difficulties of the material world. If either are incapable of understanding this and working together to find solutions to the challenges and trials that are thrust upon us, of course it will decline, and if brought far enough, outright fail.

Modernism is an affront to the sacred.

>>548472

Let's not even start, okay?

I am pissed that you act like there are no other countries besides you and it's always just USA everywhere and it's the standard assumption that someone is from there in the Internet.

>>548492

Anon, some people made bad decisions. Especially the weak people. Weakness can create a lot of evil. Just look at how Tolerance got us where we are.

>>548495

>Again, MGTOW is stupid, and you're equally ignorant for being so angry about this.

>Dude, you are wrong, because you are angry. Being angry means you are wrong.

>>548444

Thank you for your concern. However, I do not live in the United States nor the parts of Europe that have parted ways with common sense and righteousness. So I will be fine here.

>>548444

MGToW needs to Go.

>>548501

>>548501

Where are you from, friend?

>>548499

>Being angry means you are wrong.

Didn't say that. Said being angry shows your ignorant. If you were informed, you would propose a fix and understand the reasoning for the current state of affairs rather than posing blatant strawmen.

>>548499

>I am pissed that you act like there are no other countries besides you and it's always just USA everywhere and it's the standard assumption that someone is from there in the Internet.

It's not that we don't know other countries exist, it's just that we don't care.

>>548537

> Said being angry shows your ignorant.

No, you assume I'm angry, which only means I might be angry. Which I wasn't btw.

>If you were informed, you would propose a fix and understand the reasoning for the current state of affairs rather than posing blatant strawmen.

Impossible under democracy. Women outvote men. Women have a stronger in-group identity. It will not happen short of a miracle. Or you know, when the whole system collapses and this insanity will stop.

What I am proposing is that you should change your behavior on a private level.

> posing blatant strawmen.

You don't know what a strawmen is, you rude person.

>>548539

rude person

>>548552

>So my family experience

Yes, because they are from a different generation.

Marriage must always be the second option.

>>548552

No, you can totally believe that I'm lying. If we're both lying, or believe each other to be lying, there's no point in discussion.

I was assuming you were telling the truth. The problem is small sample size. I have seen many, many, cases and you have seen one. Further, you probably weren't present at the court hearings and you're perception is based on the biased perception of your parents.

I'm not saying what happened to you didn't happen but I am saying it is illogical to assume a systemic problem for a single instance. I have seen many instances and your experience- while powerful in its injustice, is a rare occurrence if it even actually went down like you think it did.

Does that make sense? I'm not negating your experience because you're not a professional, I'm saying it is ad hoc because of small sample size and likely bias in the retelling.

>>548540

>What I am proposing is that you should change your behavior on a private level.

And that change would be…

>You don't know what a strawmen is, you rude person.

You're the one suggesting judicial outcomes that are, in the actual courts, a rarity.

>>548673

>>548552

Wait, nevermind, I see what you mean about my misuse of strawman. I don't know what I was thinking. You win on that point.

>>548573

>let's make our smartest and most moral people in our tribe not breed

wew

>>548673

>And that change would be…

Not marrying through goverment.

>You're the one suggesting judicial outcomes that are, in the actual courts, a rarity.

IIRC the mother gets gurdianship of the kids in 90% of court cases

>>548732

>Not marrying through goverment.

Okay. Comes with upsides and downsides. There's a lot of legal rights you gain, and one's you lose, by being married. To think one answer is uniformly right is very egocentric. I have no problem agreeing it's right for you if you've considered all the factors but telling everyone not to utilize civil marriage when you don't know their circumstances is silly.

>>548732

>IIRC the mother gets gurdianship of the kids in 90% of court cases

Vast majority of cases in US are shared custody if parents want it. Judges are supposed to grant 50/50 custody unless one has been convicted of a crime that would put the child at risk or is mentally unfit (committed, etc.). The reasons that custody isn't split is almost always: (a) one parents doesn't want the kid, (b) one parent never shows up at court, (c) parent agrees to give mom custody before even going to court because they think that's what courts do without even bothering to see a lawyer because they believed a post like yours.

Is marriage only within the church legally binding?

What if you just get a religious ceremony that is unrecognized by the courts so a divorce wouldn't apply but still valid in the eyes of God?

>>548967

Okay, then argue against what I posted in the OP.

>>548968

Then somehow the US is less fucked up than Germany in that regard. Strange.

>>549017

Sure, just do that. Also marriage is not really religious anyway. It's not something that was invented with christianity. The old testament basically speaks about, once you fuck, you marry someone.

>>549034

> Every single man (including married christian men) in front of my generations has told me, "Don't get married".

Same.

Btw there might be hope for young women, but if they are older than 25, they likely have lost all resemblence of naive romance and just want a provider.

>>548444

utterly wasted trips

>>549034

'Cuz, you know, when Jesus said love your neighbor, he really only meant your male neighbor. Women are basically all whores.

>>549036

Okay, then argue against what I posted in the OP.

I did: >>548458

>>549036

> Every single man (including married christian men) in front of my generations has told me, "Don't get married".

> Same

So here's the counter. Happily married, wife stuck with me through the collapse of my business and temporary homelessness. We love each other deeply.

But- I think it's only because of my devotion to God. God literally hooked me up with this girl, she was a believer and went to church but hadn't given much thought to actually living it before we got together. Together, we've removed as many of the secular aspects of our lives as we can and she respects me for my faith and intellect even if my abilities in wordly matters didn't go well for awhile.

>>549074

And I already replied. :)

>>549078

That makes me really happy for you, Anon.

I wish I had that. Something like that is literally my lifegoal.

To bad that I am not actually a believer, but I would convert even to Catholicism to marry my waifu.

Do you both go to Church every week? That would suck for me.

>>549078

I wish I had something like that. I've prayed for that throughout the years but I haven't even had so much as a gf. I wonder what God means by this.

>>549088

He means that you actually need to go out and speak to people and not constantly bother the big man with that.