Post: #1

I've been reading that some people are choosing to get married without making it official with their government. Just by getting married in a church or wherever you want, actually.

Has anyone done this here or know about this?

I just turned 30. I'm in between jobs and starting a new career as a Web Designer hopefully pretty soon. So even if I believed in marriage (I lean more against it), it wouldn't be smart for me to do it.

Here are my gripes with marriage. I'll make two lists: Biblical Marriage and Modern Western (Feminist-Inspired) Marriage.

Biblical Marriage:

The genders had to fulfill traditional roles. Women tended to the house and children. They had to be humble, meek women, both in dress and tongue. They had to be loving and supportive and submit to their husband's dominance. Even with sex. In the Bible it clearly states that it's a sin for either the husband or the wife to deny each other sex: something that would be labeled "pro-rape" and extremely "misogynistic" by even non-feminist Western women.

The husband had to love his wife "like Christ loved the church", as written by Paul. This meant that he fullfilled the traditional role of protector, the breadwinner: all around traditional Alpha male. He had to do most of the heavy lifting. And since throughout about 95% of our history the male had to do dangerous and sometimes deadly jobs to support his family, it's easy to argue that men had a tougher burden than their protected wives.

My main gripe is that this system makes sense and is the best way to raise healthy, productive children, but people only lived to be about 30 years old when this was invented. Heck, even 100 years ago, the average lifespan was about 50. Monogamy makes sense when you live such a short life. And since birth control and various and effective STD protections weren't around then, fucking around and slutting it up had some SERIOUS consequences for both sexes (but especially women).

Modern Western Marriage:

The wife has virtually no traditional duties. In fact, things like raising children and tending to the house (and forsaking a rigorous career path) are seen as symptoms of Patriarchical Opression.

The man? Well, he still has to fulfill all the traditional male roles and then some: he must now keep in shape and practice at least some Game to even have a chance of not getting divorced by his wife (unless she's really, really, really gross). One advantage is that modern technology has elmininated the need for a lot of dangerous and lethal jobs in the Western world.

So what do you guys think of all this?

I've been staunchly anti-marriage for a while now, but I've started to become soft on it lately. Ideally, I wanna keep banging like crazy until about 37 or so and then marry a traditional, Christian most-likely Easter European girl at least 10 ears my junior WITHOUT signing a US marriage license. This should give me some advantages, no?

Post: #2

Meister v. Moore, 96 U.S. 76 (1877),

Post: #3

(11-25-2012 08:52 PM)calihunter Wrote:  Meister v. Moore, 96 U.S. 76 (1877),

I think the underlying, Hutchins v. Kimmel, was the real case of importance for establishing common-law.

Common-law is only law of the land in certain areas/states, no?

Post: #4

(11-25-2012 09:45 PM)Wool Suit Wrote:  

(11-25-2012 08:52 PM)calihunter Wrote:  Meister v. Moore, 96 U.S. 76 (1877),

I think the underlying, Hutchins v. Kimmel, was the real case of importance for establishing common-law.

Common-law is only law of the land in certain areas/states, no?

The state which I live in doesn't have Common in Law.

But, yes, I would have to speak (and fork up mad money) to a divorce lawyer before doing any of this. And if I do decide to marry, I will have to spend at least a few thousand arranging everything to protect myself and my future children.

Post: #5

I wrote about such a case here:

(12-21-2011 09:35 PM)basilransom Wrote:  Check this out: Rich Jewish Middle Eastern arms dealer married a woman, and then kicked her out. Turns out, they were never legally married, they only had a religious ceremony. Outcome: Far as I can tell, she got a pittance of $250k for supposed battery, assault and emotional distress, and that's it. The guy had a net worth in the hundreds of millions, so that really was nothing. The judge dismissed the palimony suit. Link 1 and 2.

Oh, and the guy's relatives were documented in Rolling Stone selling Mao era arms to the US government for use in Iraq. And the guy's son was a personal advisor to Michael Jackson, aka Shmuley Boteach.

It seems like there's a good chance you'll have no obligations if you do nothing but live together, vs a 100% chance you'll lose in a divorce settlement, if she's poorer than you. And your odds of leaving without serious losses are much better if you make a written agreement.

This site has some guidance: http://www.palimony.com/

Post: #6

I live in a state without common law marriage bullshit, so cohabiting here is far less risky than in some other states, and far less risky than getting married anywhere in this country.

Post: #7

(11-26-2012 12:07 AM)MSW2007 Wrote:  I live in a state without common law marriage bullshit, so cohabiting here is far less risky than in some other states, and far less risky than getting married anywhere in this country.

Nice.

Post: #8

The disadvantage of a non-legal based marriage is that, of course, you get none of the legal benefits of marriage--the tax break is nice-but-livable, but medical insurance can be extremely costly if you're covering your non-legal spouse, I would think (but don't know; IANAL).

Post: #9

Your issue would be the same as Samseau would have, which we discussed long time ago.
Basically you offer her a deal which largely benefits you and much less her.
Now consider that the same chick can marry a regular Western dude and get much better deal for herself than your "biblical marriage".
So yes, it is possible - but you'd have to settle up with a lower value girl, who has much less options.

And this still won't protect you from the child support.

Post: #10

(11-25-2012 08:35 PM)megatron Wrote:  I've been reading that some people are choosing to get married without making it official with their government. Just by getting married in a church or wherever you want, actually.

Has anyone done this here or know about this?

I just turned 30. I'm in between jobs and starting a new career as a Web Designer hopefully pretty soon. So even if I believed in marriage (I lean more against it), it wouldn't be smart for me to do it.

Here are my gripes with marriage. I'll make two lists: Biblical Marriage and Modern Western (Feminist-Inspired) Marriage.

Biblical Marriage:

The genders had to fulfill traditional roles. Women tended to the house and children. They had to be humble, meek women, both in dress and tongue. They had to be loving and supportive and submit to their husband's dominance. Even with sex. In the Bible it clearly states that it's a sin for either the husband or the wife to deny each other sex: something that would be labeled "pro-rape" and extremely "misogynistic" by even non-feminist Western women.

The husband had to love his wife "like Christ loved the church", as written by Paul. This meant that he fullfilled the traditional role of protector, the breadwinner: all around traditional Alpha male. He had to do most of the heavy lifting. And since throughout about 95% of our history the male had to do dangerous and sometimes deadly jobs to support his family, it's easy to argue that men had a tougher burden than their protected wives.

My main gripe is that this system makes sense and is the best way to raise healthy, productive children, but people only lived to be about 30 years old when this was invented. Heck, even 100 years ago, the average lifespan was about 50. Monogamy makes sense when you live such a short life. And since birth control and various and effective STD protections weren't around then, fucking around and slutting it up had some SERIOUS consequences for both sexes (but especially women).

Modern Western Marriage:

The wife has virtually no traditional duties. In fact, things like raising children and tending to the house (and forsaking a rigorous career path) are seen as symptoms of Patriarchical Opression.

The man? Well, he still has to fulfill all the traditional male roles and then some: he must now keep in shape and practice at least some Game to even have a chance of not getting divorced by his wife (unless she's really, really, really gross). One advantage is that modern technology has elmininated the need for a lot of dangerous and lethal jobs in the Western world.

So what do you guys think of all this?

I've been staunchly anti-marriage for a while now, but I've started to become soft on it lately. Ideally, I wanna keep banging like crazy until about 37 or so and then marry a traditional, Christian most-likely Easter European girl at least 10 ears my junior WITHOUT signing a US marriage license. This should give me some advantages, no?

Once you have achieved all this, you should write a book on how to pick a winning lottery ticket.

Look a few things here you need to be mindful of

1) Marrying foreign women without the license means that she will not be given the appropriate residence or visas. And neither will you.

2) Common law marriage is not your friend. Many countries now consider cohabitation the same as marriage. Here in Australia, living with a woman for 6 months is the same as her being your common law wife, and entitles her to the same rights. Coming to US states near you soon as marriage rates continue to decline

3) You will have even fewer rights to kids, if thats even possible.

I agree that marriage is the best way to raise kids. Unfortunately for us, marriage is high risk borderline death sentence in the west. The only option is genuine marriage in a country where the laws are equitable or at least not as severe.

All the dreams of marriage without the legal intervention are pipe dreams. The courts and feminists have seen to that already

Post: #11

as far as i can tell the key factor in determining common law marriage is if you in fact "hold yourself out the the public as married"

seems like this scenario here would all but assure a common law marriage being declared

Post: #12

I'm going to have to speak to a Father's Rights lawyer. I'm sure there are at least a few good ones in my state.

My state doesn't have common-in-law marriage, btw. Only about 13 states do. but, I'm sure there could be some loopholes that a non-state sanctioned married woman still make divorce a financially beneficial option for her.

What do you guys think? Any suggestions?

Post: #13

(11-27-2012 08:21 AM)reaper23 Wrote:  as far as i can tell the key factor in determining common law marriage is if you in fact "hold yourself out the the public as married"

So can I be "common law single" if I hold myself out to the public as single?

I recall a lawyer advising you to have your live-in girlfriend sign a paper each year that says "We are not married."

Post: #14

My suggestion to any man would be that you don't live with or marry a woman if you don't intend to start a family (yes, I know you don't HAVE to do either to have a kid, but being a FAMILY requires you all be under the same roof). One of the common rationalizations for moving in together is that since one of you is always staying over at the other's apartment/house, it just "makes sense" to move in together and share expenses, etc. I say fuck that noise. To avoid any and all legal hassles, don't shack up. And if she becomes insistent and starts dropping ultimatums, etc., walk away. You may be introducing your live-in as your girlfriend, while she may be introducing you as her fiance, even though you've never discussed it or put a ring on her...

Post: #15

In todays America I refuse to co-habitate and I won't marry another man's left overs.I guess that leaves me living alone with the option to enjoy as many women as I please. I agree that getting the government involved in your love affairs via marriage or child support court is the absolute wrong thing to do.Even with all the feminist equality BS in the workplace men still earn and save more than women so a man just has too much to lose by getting married.I think if you do choose to get married the best thing you can do is get an AIRTIGHT pre-nump. That way you can enjoy certain legal and financial benefits of marriage without the risk of losing EVERYTHING to divorce.

Post: #16

I think the Canadian situation was a good wakeup call for those determined to dance along the precipice. A wealthy man (the guy that owns Cirque de Soleil) broke up with his longterm Brazilian girlfriend. After many years of refusing to marry her, she convinced a Canadian Divorce court to retroactively marry her, and give her half his stuff because they cohabited and had children together.

...And with this precedent, thousands of Canadians woke suddenly married to their girlfriend against their will.

If enough men don't sign up for the scam, they WILL start drafting them in more and more creative ways.