UniLang

loqu wrote:As sad as his arguments may be, I'm with Oleksij in this.

I don't get the "legalised form of prostitution" bit. Perhaps in a more traditional society where the expectation is that one partner will not work and the other will support her. But where both spouses are breadwinners, civil marriage is more about legal title to common property.

linguoboy wrote:

loqu wrote:As sad as his arguments may be, I'm with Oleksij in this.

I don't get the "legalised form of prostitution" bit. Perhaps in a more traditional society where the expectation is that one partner will not work and the other will support her. But where both spouses are breadwinners, civil marriage is more about legal title to common property.

I don't get the 'legal title to common property' part, either. Partners shouldn't share any property, except their bed during the night.

A legalised form of prostitution, because a written arrangement necessarily expects partners to serve each other and no one else. Which is not a bad thing, except when it's bound by law, in which case it's an infringement of personal choices and freedoms, a form of slavery.

BezierCurve wrote: I guess it's more about partnership and how one perceives being loyal in it.

That's the whole point. Loyalty is a moral obligation, and not a legal one.

Oleksij wrote:

linguoboy wrote:

loqu wrote:As sad as his arguments may be, I'm with Oleksij in this.

I don't get the "legalised form of prostitution" bit. Perhaps in a more traditional society where the expectation is that one partner will not work and the other will support her. But where both spouses are breadwinners, civil marriage is more about legal title to common property.

I don't get the 'legal title to common property' part, either. Partners shouldn't share any property, except their bed during the night.

But, legally, they do. One of the most important benefits of civil marriage is that it protects your property rights in case of divorce. If you live with someone but your name isn't on the deed, too bad. Cooked and cleaned for twenty years while your spouse worked? Sorry--you're not entitled to any of their retirement benefits. It's a very different story if you get that blood test and sign that certificate.

linguoboy wrote:If you live with someone but your name isn't on the deed, too bad. Cooked and cleaned for twenty years while your spouse worked?

Why would I care? I would never agree to share property in the first place, nor would I want to get a share of my partner's property. I don't understand why you suddenly assume all people get into relationships/marriage in order to share things.

But, legally, they do. One of the most important benefits of civil marriage is that it protects your property rights in case of divorce.

You call that 'benefits'?

Oleksij wrote:

linguoboy wrote:If you live with someone but your name isn't on the deed, too bad. Cooked and cleaned for twenty years while your spouse worked?

Why would I care? I would never agree to share property in the first place, nor would I want to get a share of my partner's property.

We're not talking about you, are we?

Oleksij wrote:

But, legally, they do. One of the most important benefits of civil marriage is that it protects your property rights in case of divorce.

You call that 'benefits'?

Indeed, I do. After all, a wise person once said:

we all know humans are instinctive creatures, who on average, have more than one romantic/sexual partner throughout their lives, and who, moreover, obviously don't live or even feel 'forever'?

If his wife is in such a damaged mental state that she's unaware of his actions, I don't think there's a big problem. If she is aware of them, he's being kind of a bastard.

Hunef wrote:John's a bastard, that's my verdict. He should've dumped his wife first, then he could've had fun with other women.

Leaving his disabled wife is better than cheating on her? What?

Polonus wrote:[i][...] But what could he do? He was 31, the life was before him. Onanism?

You mean coitus interruptus? Because that's what Onan actually did. If you can't bring yourself to write the word "masturbation", I feel sorry for you.

Oh, and

Marriage is a grave infringement of individuality and personal freedom

You mean like the personal freedom to decide if you want to marry someone?

Chekhov wrote:If his wife is in such a damaged mental state that she's unaware of his actions, I don't think there's a big problem. If she is aware of them, he's being kind of a bastard.

Ojos que no ven, corazón que no siente?

Chekhov wrote:

Hunef wrote:John's a bastard, that's my verdict. He should've dumped his wife first, then he could've had fun with other women.

Leaving his disabled wife is better than cheating on her? What?

I think he meant leaving his wife before she got disabled.

linguoboy wrote:

Sophie wrote:Marriage is a matter of consent for both partners. Nobody is being dragged kicking and screaming into this "tool of oppression" for life.

Nobody in your intimate circle, perhaps. With all the current debate over immigration to the UK, have you really never heard of arranged marriages?

Now that you've pointed this out, I'd be happy to apply Oleksij's views on marriage just to arranged marriages and Catholic marriages. Other marriages are fine. If you're not happy with your partner, just get a divorce.

loqu wrote:I think he meant leaving his wife before she got disabled.

Especially if he's psychic and knows that she's going to have an accident.

linguoboy wrote:We're not talking about you, are we?

Not specifically.

I still don't understand the benefits of shared property through marriage - is it not better to actually leave properties to individual ownership, and, in case of sale, split the money by oral agreement? It takes a certain amount of decency to be able to do that, but it's better than going through all the bureaucracy in case of shared ownership.

Sophie wrote:If you're not happy with your partner, just get a divorce.

So easy to say. Divorce is a heartbreaking, humiliating procedure.

Oleksij wrote:I still don't understand the benefits of shared property through marriage - is it not better to actually leave properties to individual ownership, and, in case of sale, split the money by oral agreement? It takes a certain amount of decency to be able to do that, but it's better than going through all the bureaucracy in case of shared ownership.

Like you say, divorce is brutal and it plays havoc with human decency. My father--a lawyer (among other things)--used to say that in a divorce, "Each person just wants a reasonable amount of the common property--about 90%." He described the typical divorce procedure in the small town where he practiced as the two divorce attorneys sitting down together, working out what they considered to be an equitable settlement, then going back an trying to convince their respective clients to accept it.

As for why to pool assets in the first place? I think that should be clear: because you can own more stuff than you could otherwise. There's no way I could afford the apartment I'm in on my own, for instance. Sure, you can spell out by contract exactly what percentage I own and he owns and whose furnishings are whose, but that's tedious. Moreover, it makes it seem like you're expecting to break up some day, which can have a detrimental effect on the relationship.

loqu wrote:

Chekhov wrote:

Hunef wrote:John's a bastard, that's my verdict. He should've dumped his wife first, then he could've had fun with other women.

Leaving his disabled wife is better than cheating on her? What?

I think he meant leaving his wife before she got disabled.

No, after. When he got tired of the vegetable. Johnny prefers meat.

linguoboy wrote:Sure, you can spell out by contract exactly what percentage I own and he owns and whose furnishings are whose, but that's tedious. Moreover, it makes it seem like you're expecting to break up some day, which can have a detrimental effect on the relationship.

Why would it necessarily have a detrimental effect? It's not a 'when', it's an 'if', a contingency plan.

Sure, you can spell out by contract exactly what percentage I own and he owns and whose furnishings are whose, but that's tedious.

I wasn't necessarily referring to a written agreement, dividing property, since it still implies that property is shared. I don't believe it should be. The right of habitation can be shared, but it should be clear cut that the property belongs to one person, and not two. If both people contributed towards purchasing it, then they should be decent enough to have an oral agreement between them that when they separate, the legal owner would sell the property and give half of the money to the other person.

That's horrendous. I am disgusted at your immorality.

Oleksij wrote:I wasn't necessarily referring to a written agreement, dividing property, since it still implies that property is shared. I don't believe it should be. The right of habitation can be shared, but it should be clear cut that the property belongs to one person, and not two. If both people contributed towards purchasing it, then they should be decent enough to have an oral agreement between them that when they separate, the legal owner would sell the property and give half of the money to the other person.

I don't understand why you think oral agreements are somehow superior to written ones. Both have legal, standing, it's true, but the latter are far easier to defend in court--particularly if they are legally notarised (as in a pre-nuptial agreement). If someone were willing to promise something to me orally but unwilling to commit it to writing, I would doubt their sincerity.

linguoboy wrote:

Oleksij wrote:I wasn't necessarily referring to a written agreement, dividing property, since it still implies that property is shared. I don't believe it should be. The right of habitation can be shared, but it should be clear cut that the property belongs to one person, and not two. If both people contributed towards purchasing it, then they should be decent enough to have an oral agreement between them that when they separate, the legal owner would sell the property and give half of the money to the other person.

I don't understand why you think oral agreements are somehow superior to written ones. Both have legal, standing, it's true, but the latter are far easier to defend in court--particularly if they are legally notarised (as in a pre-nuptial agreement). If someone were willing to promise something to me orally but unwilling to commit it to writing, I would doubt their sincerity.

Even your potential spouse?

I'm wary of written agreements in this context, not because I'm somehow against them, but because I believe that unwritten principles are superior to written ones - if a couple so strongly need a lawyer to referee them keeping commitments to each other, then that relationship isn't worth a dime.

Chekhov wrote:That's horrendous. I am disgusted at your immorality.

Start throwing your stones.

Hunef wrote:

loqu wrote:

Chekhov wrote:

Hunef wrote:John's a bastard, that's my verdict. He should've dumped his wife first, then he could've had fun with other women.

Leaving his disabled wife is better than cheating on her? What?

I think he meant leaving his wife before she got disabled.

No, after. When he got tired of the vegetable. Johnny prefers meat.

i feel bad because this made me laugh a little... except i really don't.

Oleksij wrote:Even your potential spouse?

I'm wary of written agreements in this context, not because I'm somehow against them, but because I believe that unwritten principles are superior to written ones - if a couple so strongly need a lawyer to referee them keeping commitments to each other, then that relationship isn't worth a dime.

Yes, but when divorce knocks at your door those verbal promises jump out of the window.

loqu wrote:

Oleksij wrote:Even your potential spouse?

I'm wary of written agreements in this context, not because I'm somehow against them, but because I believe that unwritten principles are superior to written ones - if a couple so strongly need a lawyer to referee them keeping commitments to each other, then that relationship isn't worth a dime.

Yes, but when divorce knocks at your door those verbal promises jump out of the window.

Only if one is an immoral bastard.

Oleksij wrote:

loqu wrote:Yes, but when divorce knocks at your door those verbal promises jump out of the window.

Only if one is an immoral bastard.

Isn't that exactly the sort of person you should be divorcing?

Oleksij wrote:Only if one is an immoral bastard.

Just look at real cases, and you will find a lot of examples of non-exemplary persons. No one is to be trusted.