Man chooses jail over alimony

[DRSmith]

and what does that have anything to do with what we are talking about? was that just a reason to bring up your sexuality?

I think what she was trying to saying is by being in a homosexual relationship one does not worry about gender bias when facing judgement from humans on the dissolution of contracts and the placement of blame.

---------- Post added May-16th-2011 at 08:17 AM ----------

Nonsense, there have been plenty of societies, including our own not that long ago where marriage worked for men, where women were not chattel, had property rights, rights to divorce in certain circumstances. There's a lot more to be said on the subject but let's just say that I am not surprised at the overwrought and factually inaccurate response to a logical argument. I would say try reining in your emotions but that might prove difficult, so instead why not address what was said, instead of list your own associations and prejudices about 'the past.'

More importantly, how does having marriage/divorce/custody laws that REFLECT all the changes in our society (which is all I really advocate, I think) treating women as chattel? Your response does nothing for the man in this story, he's a non-person in your eyes I guess, but having laws (the little known fact is, in spite of assumptions to equality, most groups that advocate for women's 'equality' fight against changes to antiquated marriage/divorce laws when it would hinder the woman's ability to extract resources/power/status from the man or the state) that reflect the vast social transformations (good or ill) would at least offer men a better and safer investment in the institution and be better for children and women too. (of course around half those children will grow up to be men, so I don't know why I even made them a separate category really)

I wouldn't ask for men to be given the Roman power of paterfamilias, only revising the code or society itself to make the arrangement both equitable to the people involved and constructive on a broader scale.

People have to realize that when things are on pendulem then tend to swing widely. There periods even in moder history of where a man would take on a mistress leave behind his wife for a younger woman and leave he behind with nothing.

The fact there may be law on the books at times can mean nothing if those who administer the law are corrupt and is even more troubling when those who write laws now are often guilty of the laws they enact, how many of those who are law makers are also caught as cheaters.

[Thiebear]

Yeah, that's the ticket! Let's go back to the good old days of yesteryear when men were masters of all they surveyed and women and children were chattel.

No thank you. Women are more than just put on earth to clean up after men. One advantage of being a lesbian is never having to do that.

I'd prefer not to suffer a lifetime of misery because I wan't to be a participating dad that did the right thing due to the 1400's.

Somewhere between

barefoot / kitchen

|

v

here

^

|

paid for cheating

[LadySkinsFan]

Hey, if you don't like the system, then don't enter into it. I've gone on record as being against the institution of marriage and that people should enter into express contracts instead of the current system of an implied contract. With an express contract, a couple can devise the clauses that work best for them, including dissolution. What could be more equal than that?

It hasn't been that long ago that men could leave their marriages and not provide any support for their probably non-working wives and children. I know this for a fact and it wasn't that long ago. A man could just move to another state and get out of paying any court ordered alimony or child support. It still happens, like this man didn't want to pay his alimony so he turned down jobs and did everything he could to go on record that he wasn't paying. Under the CURRENT law, he was prosecuted. He is now working to change the law, as is his right. I'd work to change the law too.

You all think I'm being all emotional, but I am only writing what was true. So laws were written to address the problem of long ago. So now it seems the laws need to be changed again. See, that's what happens when marriage is governed by implied contract instead of express contract. And pre-nuptial agreements can take care of some of this problem by creating an express contract prior to marriage.

And as far as being lesbian, I could care less about same sex marriage except for those who want it, and some do. But not me personally. When I wrote about being a lesbian and not cleaning up after men, that's exactly what I meant. When I was dating men, there were expectations of who would do what that go along with sex roles. In a same sex relationship, everyone does what they like to do and as their talents indicate and divide up what isn't liked, often on a rotation basis.

So how many of you would be agreeable to having legal marriage by express contract instead of the current system of implied contract?

[aREDSKIN]

So how many of you would be agreeable to having legal marriage by express contract instead of the current system of implied contract?

IMO it will not matter one bit. There will ALWAYS be lawyers/judges that will surmise and argue that one side was unequal or not fairly represented in those contracts and throw any "contract" out and kick it back into the system. Self preservation is a powerful force. And until such time where there is equal protection under the law for these types of cases it will continue to be a cluster%$@* of injustice.