Odds of a good marriage and risks of getting married

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Wrong, wrong and more wrong. What you are saying here to BEL is totally incorrect. How do I know you are wrong? Because I am a lawyer and I did domestic law for quite enough to know very well how divorce works. Divorce by adultery is extremely rare, starting by that, so rare that I would be extremely surprised if it even reaches 5%. I have never seen a divorce for adultery in probate court and I know many lawyer who have practiced for 30 and 40 years who can count with their fingers the cases they see for adultery. Any property obtained within the marriage is not “his stuff”. Moreover, 90% of divorces are settled which mean both the husband and the wife agree to the division of the property so she doesn’t get “half of the stuff” they BOTH agree to it. In cases that are not settled every state has a different way yo determine how the division occurs and many factors play into it. The idea of “the woman gets half of the stuff” is a myth. Also, alimony is strictly regulated by states and not all women get alimony. Your idea of alimony is another myth which is not real in the actual world of divorce.

You actually thought I was serious?


While infidelity is rarely the sole cause it is very good at pushing things over the edge.

I have no issues with anything you have written except to ask why marriage needs to be involved at all? Two people can be together without marriage.

As for the OP I just meant that I would not advise anyone to get married on secular reasons alone. Not saying that people don’t, but rather that I would not advise anyone in this day and age to get married for a secular reason. BTW I would argue that “love” is not a secular reason.

From a legal standpoint that piece of paper is massive, from an emotional standpoint, not so much.

But her response was quite informative and gave the OP some awesome info.

Thanks for the complement

The divorce rate of Catholics is no different from any other religion - at least in the US.

Actually it is substantially lower, I’ve already posted the link.

Oh joy, a divorce lawyer is in our midst. I would like to pose a few simple yes or no questions to you. Please no prevarication or getting us tied down in legal loopholes.

1)Does the divorce system tend to award wives custody of the children?

2)Does the divorce system tend to award wives substantial child support?

3)Does the divorce system tend to award wives the marital home?

4)Does the divorce system tend to award wives half the couple’s assets?

5)Does the divorce system tend to award wives heavy alimony payments?

6)In your opinion, are the divorce laws in the USA biased against men?

I’d like to pose a simple yes or no question. Please no prevarication or getting us tied down in semantics.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Now to be serious:

1. Yes because women are substantially more likely to fight for custody.
2. Child support is attached to the kids, not a parent.
3. If someone is “awarded” the house it is the person with the kids who gets it
4. Divorcing couples usually agree to an equal split and avoid the system altogether.
5. No, in many cases alimony is not given
6. No

Greetings BlueEyedLady. What I meant by “she gets half of his stuff” was that, while recognizing that during marriage his stuff becomes “their” stuff, after the marriage (which can be terminated at any time thanks to unilateral no fault divorce), in the eyes of divorce court, this situation still holds. This is so even though on a common sense point of view, there is no more “them” to hold “their” stuff. So in fact, what the man will have worked and paid for will be transferred to someone who has not worked and paid for this stuff. So in effect, the wife gets the benefits of marriage (provision), even though the husband no longer does (childcare, regular sex).

Moreover, and this is something I neglected to mention in my OP, if the husband resists this transfer of wealth, he is liable to imprisonment.

A stay at home mother is a working mother, she just doesn’t directly get paid for it. Try calculating how much it would cost to have someone cook, clean, do laundry, personal shopper, attend meetings (PTA etc.), shuttle the kids around, sex etc. that women are expected to do without pay.

 

[Estevao]

I think you’re missing BEL’s point. Though many divorces are initiated by women, many are initiated by men, too. Your viewpoint seems to be that no man should get married because his wife might leave him and he’d lose some financial assets. But as BEL notes, women are at risk of their husbands leaving, too, and women who have been stay-at-home mothers or housewives are particularly at risk for being left destitute. Such women have contributed to the marriage in equal ways as their wage-earning husbands, and as such our legal system recognizes their contributions to the marriage and equitably divides assets if a divorce does occur.

(On a side note, just because one spouse initiates divorce proceedings doesn’t always mean they’re at fault. I have a friend whose husband left her for another woman but refused to file for divorce because he said it was too much of a “hassle.”
After some time, she ended up being the one to file because she needed to settle legal matters etc. – but would she really be the one considered to be at fault in the divorce, simply because she was first to file?)

On a side note I have an uncle whose wife left him for another man (and had had this affair for quite a while when everybody thought they were still husband and wife) but filed for divorce and was entitled to half of his wealth and equal visitation with the child. Apparently the divorce laws in the west aren’t biased against men though so maybe I should consider marriage after all.

Thanks guys. I will definitely think about marriage if I don’t see myself capable of being a priest. One of the reasons I don’t think I’m called to that is because I don’t come from a Catholic family, so I imagine I wouldn’t even have family to keep me company as a priest, let alone a wife.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I believe the cases of abuse or unfaithfulness you are describing would be termed “at fault” divorces, and no unilateral no fault divorces.

I don’t really see why a wife should be able to up and leave a marriage for no fault and still get the benefits of marriage.

Since you seem to be such a statistics buff, why don’t you look up how well divorced women fare economically. It isn’t pretty.

Furthermore, I don’t know what you think the benefits of marriage are for a woman, but even if I were awarded all the money in the world, if I didn’t have my husband, I wouldn’t have the benefits of marriage. I would have the benefits of money. Two very different things.

I also think that you totally don’t understand what “no fault” divorce means. It does NOT mean that no one did anything wrong and that one partner is just u and leaving. That’s a very common and wrong misconception. It just means that the couple is not going to rove to the state why they should be allowed to divorce. Basically, it happens when a divorce is uncontested, or when the guilty party is willing to acquiesce to protect their reputation/assets/what have you. Unfaithful men are notorious for supporting no fault divorces, so as to keep their indiscretions from becoming public and hurting them personally and professionally.

 

[Xantippe]

Estevao said;

“I would like to discuss why men in my age bracket (18-35) would ever want to get married. I would like to discuss this from a purely secular standpoint.”

From a secular standpoint, that’s a weirdly broad age bracket to choose. 18-year-olds may still be in high school, while many 35-year-olds (especially on this forum) are married have several children at this point.

“-My reading of Catholic Answers and visual survey of the pews every sunday lets me know that even in the western Catholic world, marriages don’t seem to be all too bright, lots of problems in them, hanging on by a thread even if they manage to avoid divorce.”

That’s weird. The families I see at church seem fairly functional, which is what you would expect.

In my personal life as an SAHM, I see women who are working hard and conscientiously to care for, protect and educate their children, to run their homes economically, to keep their husbands healthy, and to ensure general welfare. They’re thinking about how to get the babies to sleep properly, how to potty train the toddlers, how to get the bigger kids to eat their veggies, how to squeeze as much as possible out of the school district for a disabled child, and how to figure out college for the highschoolers.

“Now to you, CA poster, why should a young man such as myself, with a decent career in the works, lots of free time to pursue activities that please him, and time to volunteer and do almsgiving, fasting, prayer and study of the church, put all this on the line for a marriage which would seem to be a rather unwise investment if it were about money and not people given the above stats. Also remember the possibility of subjecting a child to a broken home, not a delightful prospect from what I’ve heard and known.”

As others have said, don’t bother. You don’t have enough love to offer a wife at this point. Don’t get married until you do.

You haven’t really even scratched the surface by just talking about the perils of divorce. If anything, kids are a bigger risk. They can have physical or learning disabilities, they wreck your stuff, they can take years to potty train, they throw up over carpet and bedding in the middle of the night, they get sick a lot and spend a lot of time out of school, they love loud toys, they’re super expensive, etc. It just goes on and on.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

On a side note I have an uncle whose wife left him for another man (and had had this affair for quite a while when everybody thought they were still husband and wife) but filed for divorce and was entitled to half of his wealth and equal visitation with the child. Apparently the divorce laws in the west aren’t biased against men though so maybe I should consider marriage after all. Once again, it is not his wealth. She gave up a lot to help him earn it. But its nice to know that if you ever got married you would not value your wife’s contributions as equal to your own. And of course she got joint custody, unfaithful men get joint custody too. Children should not be pulled away from parents unless there is danger of abuse.

 

[Estevao]

I’d like to pose a simple yes or no question. Please no prevarication or getting us tied down in semantics.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Lol

Now to be serious:

1. Yes because women are substantially more likely to fight for custody.
2. Child support is attached to the kids, not a parent.
3. If someone is “awarded” the house it is the person with the kids who gets it
4. Divorcing couples usually agree to an equal split and avoid the system altogether.
5. No, in many cases alimony is not given
6. No

1)So are you saying that men have an equal chance of getting awarded custody if they fight for it? This would be news to me!

2)So are you saying that there are measures in place to ensure that child support is only spent on the child? This would be news to me!

3)And who is the spouse who tends to get awarded custody?

4)I think I’d like to refer to what another poster said about the difficulty of proving fault in divorces resulting in a lot of women filing for no fault divorces. Do you think that men might put up with this equal split outside of the divorce court system because they know how they would be taken to the cleaners in divorce court by lawyers like marymary1975? In other words, do they play along to avoid an even greater inconvenience?

5)Good to know, thank you.

1. Alrighty then.

A stay at home mother is a working mother, she just doesn’t directly get paid for it. Try calculating how much it would cost to have someone cook, clean, do laundry, personal shopper, attend meetings (PTA etc.), shuttle the kids around, sex etc. that women are expected to do without pay.

Right…and if this wife decides to leave the marriage, why should she still get the benefits of marriage? Does the husband still get to have his wife to come by and do all those things?

 

[Estevao]

As others have said, don’t bother. You don’t have enough love to offer a wife at this point. Don’t get married until you do.

You haven’t really even scratched the surface by just talking about the perils of divorce. If anything, kids are a bigger risk. They can have physical or learning disabilities, they wreck your stuff, they can take years to potty train, they throw up over carpet and bedding in the middle of the night, they get sick a lot and spend a lot of time out of school, they love loud toys, they’re super expensive, etc. It just goes on and on.

Okay thank you for the advice Xantippe. Interestingly enough I do like children, warts and all. I volunteered a lot in college with children around schools because I was considering becoming a teacher, however due to the morally objectionable things I would have been required to teach, I chose another path.

 

[Xantippe]

BEL said:

“Furthermore, I don’t know what you think the benefits of marriage are for a woman, but even if I were awarded all the money in the world, if I didn’t have my husband, I wouldn’t have the benefits of marriage. I would have the benefits of money. Two very different things.”

Exactly.

My husband is an excellent provider, but that’s only half of what he does. He’s also very good around the house, very good with supervising school projects, very good at helping with finances, and very good at a lot of different things. I would really struggle without him, even if I had the same income as before.

And I think he would really struggle without me. In fact, I’ve told him that in the case of my untimely demise, he should remarry, but not too quickly.

Estevao said:

“So are you saying that there are measures in place to ensure that child support is only spent on the child? This would be news to me!”

A few hundred dollars a month is just enough to feed a child and put clothes on their back and tennis shoes on their feet and maybe pay a tiny sliver of the rent or childcare. It doesn’t go very far.

I finally found a hard number on average child support payments.

census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/children/cb12-109.html

“Child support payments averaged $5,150 annually, or $430 per month.”

Think about your current housing situation, and imagine having to pay for an extra bedroom. After you’d paid for that extra bedroom, how much would be left over from the $430?

 

[thewanderer]

On a side note I have an uncle whose wife left him for another man (and had had this affair for quite a while when everybody thought they were still husband and wife) but filed for divorce and was entitled to half of his wealth and equal visitation with the child. Apparently the divorce laws in the west aren’t biased against men though so maybe I should consider marriage after all.

Thanks guys. I will definitely think about marriage if I don’t see myself capable of being a priest. One of the reasons I don’t think I’m called to that is because I don’t come from a Catholic family, so I imagine I wouldn’t even have family to keep me company as a priest, let alone a wife.

First, marriage and priesthood/brotherhood are not the only vocations, one can also be called to a celibate, lay, single life where they live in service for others.

Second, as a priest or brother you do still have people to keep you company, as a priest or brother in a religious community you have your entire religious community to keep you company, as well as anybody who your community ministers to. If you are a secular diocesan priest you will have your fellow priests (if it is a large enough parish) as well as parishioners and others you meet as you live your life as an example of the gospel. You are not doomed to a lonely life of solitude as a priest/brother simply because your family is not Catholic. Even if your family is so unreasonable and anti-catholic that they would refuse to have anything to do with you if you become a priest, there are still many other avenues for friendship and copanionship.
Do not decide to get married just because you think you would be too lonely as a priest. That is a terrible idea and would most likely lead to an unhappy marriage for both you and your future wife. Only get married if you are certain it is God’s calling for you and only if your views on the value of women’s contribution in marriage as well as that of the very nature of marriage itself have changed substantially, otherwise you will be setting up yourself, your wife, and your future children for a very unhappy situation.

 

[maryjk]

Right…and if this wife decides to leave the marriage, why should she still get the benefits of marriage? Does the husband still get to have his wife to come by and do all those things?

Which benefits of marriage do you think she still receives?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Lol

1)So are you saying that men have an equal chance of getting awarded custody if they fight for it? This would be news to me!

2)So are you saying that there are measures in place to ensure that child support is only spent on the child? This would be news to me!

3)And who is the spouse who tends to get awarded custody?

4)I think I’d like to refer to what another poster said about the difficulty of proving fault in divorces resulting in a lot of women filing for no fault divorces. Do you think that men might put up with this equal split outside of the divorce court system because they know how they would be taken to the cleaners in divorce court by lawyers like marymary1975? In other words, do they play along to avoid an even greater inconvenience?

5)Good to know, thank you.

1. Alrighty then.

1. in my state if men fight for custody they have 1:1 odds
2. The amount per child is rarely more than the amount necessary to maintain the child, additionally oney is fungible so rather pointless
3. The one who fights for it unless both fight for it in which cases it is a tossup
4. They generally don’t get “taken to the cleaners in divorce court” unless they did something rather grave (such as abuse).

Right…and if this wife decides to leave the marriage, why should she still get the benefits of marriage? Does the husband still get to have his wife to come by and do all those things?

The division of assets generally settles that unless she was a stay at home mother in which case there is often alimony for a few years so they can get back in the workforce.

 

[Estevao]

Which benefits of marriage do you think she still receives?

Provision. Although perhaps none at all, because maybe there were none to begin with. Like the feminists say “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”.

 

[thewanderer]

Provision. Although perhaps none at all, because maybe there were none to begin with. Like the feminists say “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”.

Again, so long as you think of marriage as just an arrangement where men give women money and women give men sex you should not even think about getting married. This perception is so far from the reality of marriage its not even funny. And I assure you, if you go into marriage with this perception of it your marriage will most definitely have a very high chance of failure. So if the point of this thread is to ask why would people enter such an arrangement the answer really is there is no good reason for them to do so. However, that doesn’t change the fact that there are many wonderful and compelling reasons for people to marry. Just not for them to enter into what you consider a “marriage”.

 

[maryjk]

Provision. Although perhaps none at all, because maybe there were none to begin with. Like the feminists say “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”.

After reading all of your posts here on this thread, it is quite obvious to me that you have no idea what marriage is all about. Especially if you think the benefits for a woman is “provision” and for a man it is "sex.

I have to agree with BEL

Dude, DO NOT GET MARRIED. There is no place for pride or materialism in marriage.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Provision. Although perhaps none at all, because maybe there were none to begin with. Like the feminists say “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”.

I see where the confusion and disagreement is here. You’re talking about prostitution, the rest of us are talking about marriage.

In that case, I’m going to have to agree with you, a man (or woman) should not consider hitching themselves, their finances, or their hearts to prostitutes.

 

[The_Bucket]

Again, so long as you think of marriage as just an arrangement where men give women money and women give men sex you should not even think about getting married. This perception is so far from the reality of marriage its not even funny. And I assure you, if you go into marriage with this perception of it your marriage will most definitely have a very high chance of failure. So if the point of this thread is to ask why would people enter such an arrangement the answer really is there is no good reason for them to do so. However, that doesn’t change the fact that there are many wonderful and compelling reasons for people to marry. Just not for them to enter into what you consider a “marriage”.

Well it was kind of a reality in the past, or even in the present in societies where arranged marriages are still a thing. But even then, it was way more than simply “money for sex.” It was physical security for emotional security and/or the addition of children to the family.

Certainly in the Western past marriage was more “contractual” than it is today, but it wasn’t money for sex. That’s a totally separate institution.

 

[marymary1975]

You actually thought I was serious?


While infidelity is rarely the sole cause it is very good at pushing things over the edge.

From a legal standpoint that piece of paper is massive, from an emotional standpoint, not so much.

Thanks for the complement

Actually it is substantially lower, I’ve already posted the link.

I’d like to pose a simple yes or no question. Please no prevarication or getting us tied down in semantics.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Now to be serious:

1. Yes because women are substantially more likely to fight for custody.
2. Child support is attached to the kids, not a parent.
3. If someone is “awarded” the house it is the person with the kids who gets it
4. Divorcing couples usually agree to an equal split and avoid the system altogether.
5. No, in many cases alimony is not given
6. No

A stay at home mother is a working mother, she just doesn’t directly get paid for it. Try calculating how much it would cost to have someone cook, clean, do laundry, personal shopper, attend meetings (PTA etc.), shuttle the kids around, sex etc. that women are expected to do without pay.

Sorry I didn’t realized you were being sarcastic!

 

[Estevao]

Again, so long as you think of marriage as just an arrangement where men give women money and women give men sex you should not even think about getting married. This perception is so far from the reality of marriage its not even funny. And I assure you, if you go into marriage with this perception of it your marriage will most definitely have a very high chance of failure. So if the point of this thread is to ask why would people enter such an arrangement the answer really is there is no good reason for them to do so. However, that doesn’t change the fact that there are many wonderful and compelling reasons for people to marry. Just not for them to enter into what you consider a “marriage”.

After reading all of your posts here on this thread, it is quite obvious to me that you have no idea what marriage is all about. Especially if you think the benefits for a woman is “provision” and for a man it is "sex.

I have to agree with BEL

I said I would like to discuss marriage from a purely secular standpoint in the OP. In that case, marriage is indentured servitude for men in exchange for sex.

I’m almost finished my RCIA class and hope to be confirmed this easter, and I remember the lesson about the sacrament of marriage. It’s very beautiful. However I’m wondering why it’s even necessary to involve the secular legal system in marriage as the Roman Catholic Church does, why couldn’t my wife and I just get married in the church? Of course where I live, if I live with a woman for just 2 years, the law is the same for us as it is for those who even bother going through with a civil marriage so there’s really no way around it…

 

[The_Bucket]

I said I would like to discuss marriage from a purely secular standpoint in the OP. In that case, marriage is indentured servitude for men in exchange for sex.

I… what? So… unless we go back to times where women were property and had no rights outside of the rights granted by their husbands or inherited from their husbands in the case of their deaths… marriage is indentured servitude for men? Even from a secular view that makes absolutely no sense.

You’re pretty young to be jaded about women bro.

 

[maryjk]

I see where the confusion and disagreement is here. You’re talking about prostitution, the rest of us are talking about marriage.

In that case, I’m going to have to agree with you, a man (or woman) should not consider hitching themselves, their finances, or their hearts to prostitutes.

You said exactly what I was thinking.

Sex in exchange for money. That isn’t marriage. And if someone sees the only or most important benefit in marriage for women is “provision” and for men is “sex,” then they are not talking about marriage. You are right. They are talking about prostitution.

And OP, you might want to notice that BEL isn’t Catholic. Oh, and neither is my husband. They both look at things through secular eyes.