Odds of a good marriage and risks of getting married

[Xantippe]

“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?”

Because a Catholic marriage is more than, not less than a civil marriage.

 

[mommamaree]

Maybe I am just completely naive, but I was under the impression that men did not only want sex out of a woman. I stupidly thought that men also wanted to be loved by their wives and be able to start a family together.

 

[marymary1975]

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 whsat 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.

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?

As I already mentioned to you 90% of divorces end up in a settlement agreed by the parties so while you keep ranting about the men not having the custody and the wife having the house you don’t seem to get that in the vast majority of cases the man AGREED to that. He by himself agreed to all what you are ranting about. Moreover, I can bet that your uncle as usually happens with divorces also agreed to those terms and had a settlement agreement. Again you are judging your uncle’s situation with probably 1/5 of the knowledge required to make a good judgment.

 

[Xantippe]

The Bucket said:

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

I’m not sure how young he is (I’m guessing the lower end of the 18-35 spectrum?), but he is very inexperienced to be so jaded.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

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.

Please, explain to ny husband how he is an indentured servant for sex. I’m sure he would be fascinated.

If you want to get married without the legal aspect, go for it. But most people who try that realize eventually that they are far more vulnerable without the contract than with, especially when it comes to wills and death benefits. If you live with a woman without marriage and she dies, her family can sue you for her things, and that includes half of what was acquired during the cohabitation.

And good luck finding a woman who is ok living as your wife forever after you tell her that you want her to live with you and care for you and your home, but that you don’t trust her to have legal rights. This is especially true after you explain that you don’t want her to work, and that she should trust you enough to risk homelessness. It’s a pipe dream anyway though, because in cases of cohabitation, the courts still split communal property evenly.

 

[The_Bucket]

Maybe I am just completely naive, but I was under the impression that men did not only want sex out of a woman. I stupidly thought that men also wanted to be loved by their wives and be able to start a family together.

Naw. It’s pretty much sex only. Well that and cooking. I’ll take care of the laundry but only if the food is good.

 

[Xantippe]

marymary1975 said:

“As I already mentioned to you 90% of divorces end up in a settlement agreed by the parties so while you keep ranting about the men not having the custody and the wife having the house you don’t seem to get that in the vast majority of cases the man AGREED to that.”

Or that it represents a fairly reasonable division of property.

The divorce I know best is my aunt and uncle. My aunt is a TALKER, so I heard lots about it. They had a house, quite a few rental homes, and a pile of his credit card debt run up during the separation. There was a fairly equitable division of the home and rental houses, with my aunt getting the house and a few (three?) of the rental homes.

The financial arrangements seemed pretty fair. During the three or so years of spousal support, she got about $20k a year (her husband was making $250k) for herself. There was also some child support, but very briefly, as their youngest aged out pretty fast. He also helped with college. But, as I said, $250k a year.

Financially speaking, that sounded pretty fair to me.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Maybe I am just completely naive, but I was under the impression that men did not only want sex out of a woman. I stupidly thought that men also wanted to be loved by their wives and be able to start a family together.

Ever noticed how he complains about “feminism” ruining marriage, but he can’t look at women as people, only as statistics. And its him, not the feminists, who is campaigning against marriage as unnecessary and life ruining.

I’m a happily married feminist, it seems he’s just angry.

 

[thewanderer]

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…

BEL and her husband are both Atheists, you can’t get around calling their marriage “secular” yet BEL is on here agreeing with me and everyone else that you have no clue what marriage is about, even secular marriage. Like I said, I agree with you, if it was only about trading sex for money it would be pretty stupid, but its not, not even in the secular sphere, not at all.

 

[Xantippe]

Come to think of it, to this day, a lot of women marry in order to have sex, which upsets the sex for provision paradigm a bit.

 

[thewanderer]

Please, explain to ny husband how he is an indentured servant for sex. I’m sure he would be fascinated.

If you want to get married without the legal aspect, go for it. But most people who try that realize eventually that they are far more vulnerable without the contract than with, especially when it comes to wills and death benefits. If you live with a woman without marriage and she dies, her family can sue you for her things, and that includes half of what was acquired during the cohabitation.

And good luck finding a woman who is ok living as your wife forever after you tell her that you want her to live with you and care for you and your home, but that you don’t trust her to have legal rights. This is especially true after you explain that you don’t want her to work, and that she should trust you enough to risk homelessness. It’s a pipe dream anyway though, because in cases of cohabitation, the courts still split communal property evenly.

Also… THIS

 

[The_Bucket]

Come to think of it, to this day, a lot of women marry in order to have sex, which upsets the sex for provision paradigm a bit.

Well it does make for a fairer trade anyway. It’s sex for sex then.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

BEL and her husband are both Atheists, you can’t get around calling their marriage “secular” yet BEL is on here agreeing with me and everyone else that you have no clue what marriage is about, even secular marriage. Like I said, I agree with you, if it was only about trading sex for money it would be pretty stupid, but its not, not even in the secular sphere, not at all.

The funniest part is that he thinks secular marriages are indentured servitude for men, but secular women are less likely to be SAHMs! It seems like a woman who “makes her own money” would be preferable to him over a traditional, religious, SAH woman.

 

[marymary1975]

Please, explain to ny husband how he is an indentured servant for sex. I’m sure he would be fascinated.

If you want to get married without the legal aspect, go for it. But most people who try that realize eventually that they are far more vulnerable without the contract than with, especially when it comes to wills and death benefits. If you live with a woman without marriage and she dies, her family can sue you for her things, and that includes half of what was acquired during the cohabitation.

And good luck finding a woman who is ok living as your wife forever after you tell her that you want her to live with you and care for you and your home, but that you don’t trust her to have legal rights. This is especially true after you explain that you don’t want her to work, and that she should trust you enough to risk homelessness. It’s a pipe dream anyway though, because in cases of cohabitation, the courts still split communal property evenly.

And I want to reiterate what someone else said…BEL is not catholic so right there you have a secular and objective view of the issue.

 

[mommamaree]

Naw. It’s pretty much sex only. Well that and cooking. I’ll take care of the laundry but only if the food is good.

The really sad thing is, this is how I was raised by a Baptist adoptive dad, to believe that men do not want children, and that they only agree to it occasionally, as repayment for the wife providing sex. And women were to handle everything: child rearing, house work, home improvements, yard work…in short, all the work of life except for the bringing home of the paycheck. Oh yeah, except women should work outside the home, too, and bring home enough bacon to keep the family in a higher income bracket.

I swore I would never marry a man like him. As in, to his face.

I thank God I met my husband while we were still children. I had thought I would never marry and have children. After all, I had already done the lion’s share of raising my siblings before I left home for good. But, my love for the gentle, kind man that my husband is changed my attitude.

But it wasn’t until last year, that my husband was finally able to convince me that he does not merely tolerate our children for the sake of sex. He actually LOVES them as much as I do, and would do anything for them and gets excited about adding to our family (we are expecting our fifth child) and that he LOVES me and does not merely tolerate me and my faults for the sake of sex. When I realized how long I had labored under that delusion, I was deeply grieved, and very sorry I had underestimated the goodness of my husband.

So, now I respond pretty aggressively anytime a hint of this notion of wives essentially being prostitutes and maids. That is really how many people are raised today, and it is disgusting and so incredibly harmful. ANY man who thinks this way is NOT cut out for marriage. He should save his future wife and children from certain harm by just swearing off marriage altogether.

 

[thewanderer]

The funniest part is that he thinks secular marriages are indentured servitude for men, but secular women are less likely to be SAHMs! It seems like a woman who “makes her own money” would be preferable to him over a traditional, religious, SAH woman.

Yeah… that whole sex for money thing doesn’t seem so realistic when you have both people working… often with the wife earning more than the husband…

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I am on the side of everyone else in this thread. The OP has some serious changing to do when it comes to women, and the purpose of marriage. BEL is spot on on her posts and actually her explanations of marriage fit what the sacrament should be for Catholics.

To the OP.
For you, there are no secular reasons to marry.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I am on the side of everyone else in this thread. The OP has some serious changing to do when it comes to women, and the purpose of marriage. BEL is spot on on her posts and actually her explanations of marriage fit what the sacrament should be for Catholics.

To the OP.
For you, there are no secular reasons to marry.

I would actually love to hear your (name removed by moderator)ut as a SAHD. What benefits of marriage is your wife getting exactly, if you aren’t working? And don’t say childcare and housework, she could hire a nanny.

Obviously, I’m being facetious.

 

[The_Bucket]

The really sad thing is, this is how I was raised by a Baptist adoptive dad, to believe that men do not want children, and that they only agree to it occasionally, as repayment for the wife providing sex. And women were to handle everything: child rearing, house work, home improvements, yard work…in short, all the work of life except for the bringing home of the paycheck. Oh yeah, except women should work outside the home, too, and bring home enough bacon to keep the family in a higher income bracket.

That’s just insane. Marriage has always been a partnership. In times past, certain cultural norms dictated how that partnership worked out, but it was still nevertheless a partnership. Women ruled the roost at home for the most part. Men operated in the “public sphere.” Today the rules of the game are far more flexible, but the partnership remains.

The way your dad put it, there’s no actual give and take. Just give, give, give by the wife and take, take, take by the husband. So basically, servitude. Those kinds of relationships certainly existed, but they were wrong. I’m not saying that anything other than egalitarian, modern marriage for love is morally wrong. But I mean, look at the notable wives in Scripture. All of them had major roles in shaping their husbands as men. And they most certainly were called upon to shape the next generation. Cultural norms dictated that they not be in what we would consider the public sphere, but they did plenty of work and were certainly given plenty of respect as well.

I swore I would never marry a man like him. As in, to his face.

Good.

But it wasn’t until last year, that my husband was finally able to convince me that he does not merely tolerate our children for the sake of sex. He actually LOVES them as much as I do, and would do anything for them and gets excited about adding to our family (we are expecting our fifth child) and that he LOVES me and does not merely tolerate me and my faults for the sake of sex. When I realized how long I had labored under that delusion, I was deeply grieved, and very sorry I had underestimated the goodness of my husband.

Very sad it took you so long to shake that, and very glad you have. Even a very flawed, very sinful man like myself takes great joy in being a father. It’s certainly a burden at times, but I think you would concede that being a mother is a burden at times too.

So, now I respond pretty aggressively anytime a hint of this notion of wives essentially being prostitutes and maids. That is really how many people are raised today, and it is disgusting and so incredibly harmful. ANY man who thinks this way is NOT cut out for marriage. He should save his future wife and children from certain harm by just swearing off marriage altogether.

Indeed. Better off just going for actual prostitutes.

 

[thewanderer]

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…

Also, I was struck by the fact that you love the idea of a Catholic marriage, but somehow, the idea of being legally married, even if you are both Catholics and agree to the Catholic view of marriage, disturbs you. I think that is something for you to take some time out at some point to think about. The problem you have with legal marriage seems to be an insecurity that your wife will take advantage of what you see as an unfair system and treat you unfairly. Now think about the beautiful vision of a Catholic marriage again, in such a marriage both spouses are completely and unconditionally tied and committed to the other. How, in such a marriage, can there be any room for such distrust of your wife that you fear being married legally? How can you honestly commit yourself unconditionally to someone if you do not trust them? Its impossible.These two ideas are incompatible. If you view and approach marriage as a Catholic you should not have this great fear and mistrust of being married legally, the two really are incompatible. Just something for you to think about.