Why would you want to marry?

[fenix]

Why?

 

Because many women will not settle for being a life partner, doing all the things a wife would, bearing children and not being protected legally. In addition there could be religious reasons.

 

I for one would have accepted it and I wouldn't want my daughter to settle for less than what I view as the ultimate committed relationship.

 

Well that will narrow her pool of choice as it will narrow the pool of choice for my son if he listen to me and do not marry but look for a relationship without the need of a legal commitment.

 

As I have shown in statistics marriages are declining in an incredible path so your daughter may face some difficulties to find prince charming and get him to put a ring on it.

 

(see some statistics on unmarried Americans http://www.unmarried.org/statistics/)

 

The answer may not be to live in "bachelorhood" away from all those "sensitive" women, but for men in general to work on the marriage so that a woman does not feel so neglected she has to leave.

The goal posts shifted but men in general haven't embraced the change. Now it seems, some men have "solved" the problem by not wanting to play the game at all. But they are IMO just biting off their noses to spite their faces. Humans like to couple off, they need the safety and the security of stable bonding, take that away and you perhaps get generations of lonely old men.

 

Well is a world where there are significantly much more women than men and where statistically women live longer than men my expectation is that there will be much more lonely women than lonely men (just to match the numbers).

 

Anyway if you marry there is a 50% to 75% that you will end up alone anyway and with much less money after paying the divorce settlement and the alimony... I would choose the NO marrying loneliness anytime if I have to.

 

Why would any woman (atleast to me) would bear a mans child and not have his commitment for life with her.

 

 

First to me, marriage is the promise of being together through everything. receiving the mans name so I would share my child's and his last name. Making a future with each other.

 

You do not need to marry someone to commit for life and marrying someone doesn't mean commitment for life (that is sadly the whole point of the post... as most marriages will end in divorce).

 

Why any man will choose to give you the half of what he has and to pay you alimony while you keep his children away from him?

 

At this moment you still have a wide enough pool of guys who are willing to get married... but this is changing with amazingly speed and while you would not settle for less than marriage in the future many women will have to if they want to be in a relationship... because most men (or at least the attractive ones) just wont put their knee to the floor anymore.

 

One of the funnier autocorrects I've seen here. Unless that was your intended meaning ???

 

Mr. Lucky

 

You will have to explain me how those two are not compatible with each other... if you are married and your wife divorces you because she has found another guy doesn't mean that the other guy will marry her.. Actually most people who divorce don't go as easy into a second marriage and the amount of them that go to a third one is even less...

 

You can cohabitate without getting married...

 

We are driven to committed long term relationships. Marriage is a way we've institutionalized trying to keep these relationships together.

 

Yes I agree but that is a cultural heritage and education and the sexual revolution have changed that. There are many factors that drove the romantic relationship before the sex revolution that have changed (virginity to the wedding... etc)

 

Women aren't always the winner in a divorce. Sure they may get more money out of it, but that is only in case where they've already sacrificed money or their career to the marriage.

Women are MOSTLY the winner in a divorce, not only for the money but because they get custody above 90% of the cases. Custody comes always with Alimony (it doesn't matter that your wife gets a better check, you still have to pay her for the alimony)

 

Sure you can, but if you aren't committing to the future, whether it's via a formal marriage or not, you always have one foot out the door. When you have problems you'll be done. I don't see how this is any better than people getting married, trying to make it work, and sometimes failing.

 

The thing is that with marriage today you have a foot in the door anyway... more marriages than not end up in divorce...

 

 

 

Blind nostalgia for the past drives me nuts. No, love was not forever. Love was rarely even a part of marriages in the past. You stayed married because you had too, not because you wanted too.

 

It is not blind nostalgia, the fact that many marriages were not even for love doesn't change that many of them end up loving each other. To the contrary that many people think love is not the butterflies that you feel when you are in love, that is temporary and won't survive further than the 5 years mark (if it gets there...) Love is a choice that you do every day and loving someone is much more powerful than being in love because you choose to love that person while you don't have any choice of whom you get in love with.

People gave value to the vows they chose to make and lived up to them, they fought through the rough moments... now the first signal of weakness of the marriage is mostly lethal for it...

Edited December 20, 2016 by fenix

[Gaeta]

Women are MOSTLY the winner in a divorce, not only for the money but because they get custody above 90% of the cases. Custody comes always with Alimony (it doesn't matter that your wife gets a better check, you still have to pay her for the alimony)

 

Marry a woman that can pull her own weight financially that is all.

 

No not all divorces come with alimony, it's only when the woman/man ends up in a situation she cannot maintain a reasonable level of living. In Canada alimony almost does not exist. AGAIN put it in your PRE-NUP.

 

No not 90% of women get custody. A judge will always favor 50/50 when both parents can offer a stable home. My ex and I had 50-50 custody.

 

Too many divorced men are TOO happy to only have their kids every second weekends and when they have their kids over they plug them in front of tv or computer games.

 

Instead of teaching your son to live a life of distrust, a life of suspicions, why not teach him a life of 'common sense' and teach him to make wise decisions on his own, teach him to watch out for his own back, and teach him every contract he will enter has consequences and to be ready to assume those consequences..........instead of poisoning his little mind with your fears.

[fenix]

Women are MOSTLY the winner in a divorce, not only for the money but because they get custody above 90% of the cases. Custody comes always with Alimony (it doesn't matter that your wife gets a better check, you still have to pay her for the alimony)

 

Marry a woman that can pull her own weight financially that is all.

 

No not all divorces come with alimony, it's only when the woman/man ends up in a situation she cannot maintain a reasonable level of living. In Canada alimony almost does not exist. AGAIN put it in your PRE-NUP.

 

No not 90% of women get custody. A judge will always favor 50/50 when both parents can offer a stable home. My ex and I had 50-50 custody.

 

Too many divorced men are TOO happy to only have their kids every second weekends and when they have their kids over they plug them in front of tv or computer games.

 

Instead of teaching your son to live a life of distrust, a life of suspicions, why not teach him a life of 'common sense' and teach him to make wise decisions on his own, teach him to watch out for his own back, and teach him every contract he will enter has consequences and to be ready to assume those consequences..........instead of poisoning his little mind with your fears.

 

Pre-nup are not always accepted and valid while challenged in a court.

 

Alimony is always a duty of the non custody holder towards the children (I have no issues with the father taking care of the children costs but the problem is that the custody holder gets to decide how to manage that money and it is most of the cases not 100% in the children)

 

I don't know where you have your statistics from but when custody is challenged (when the parents don't agree on the custodial format) more than 90% of the cases it is given to the mother. In some states like Nebraska the 72% of the divorced fathers got to see their kids 5 days per month. (Please see the statistic Dealing With Unjust Custody Laws: Part I | Men's Divorce)

 

 

The tendency in marriages is not for nothing decreasing... there are other formats for cohabitation, in Europe it is almost as normal to see a couple living together as seeing someone marrying.

 

Most marriages end up in Divorce, that is a fact and telling so to my son is not bringing any poison but objectivity in his choice. Loving someone doesn't mean marrying someone, you can love and live together with someone and choose to do so every day of your life.

Edited December 20, 2016 by fenix

[GunslingerRoland]

Yes I agree but that is a cultural heritage and education and the sexual revolution have changed that. There are many factors that drove the romantic relationship before the sex revolution that have changed (virginity to the wedding... etc)

 

Women are MOSTLY the winner in a divorce, not only for the money but because they get custody above 90% of the cases. Custody comes always with Alimony (it doesn't matter that your wife gets a better check, you still have to pay her for the alimony)

 

The thing is that with marriage today you have a foot in the door anyway... more marriages than not end up in divorce...

 

It is not blind nostalgia, the fact that many marriages were not even for love doesn't change that many of them end up loving each other. To the contrary that many people think love is not the butterflies that you feel when you are in love, that is temporary and won't survive further than the 5 years mark (if it gets there...) Love is a choice that you do every day and loving someone is much more powerful than being in love because you choose to love that person while you don't have any choice of whom you get in love with.

People gave value to the vows they chose to make and lived up to them, they fought through the rough moments... now the first signal of weakness of the marriage is mostly lethal for it...

 

Yes there are a lot of factors that have changed relationships especially marriages. Many of them, like laws that state that woman are people too, are very good things, and shouldn't be so easily dismissed.

 

Don't confuse alimony with child support. If a woman gets full custody of course she will get more money, you are a parent, you clearly must know it costs money to raise a child right? And yeah typically custody is half half or something similar unless there is a reason for it to be otherwise.

 

40-50% of marriages end in divorce. That is far too many, but it still isn't more than half.

 

And while I agree with the majority of what you are saying about love, I'm sorry but yes it is blind nostalgia. People didn't live up their marriage vows. They stayed married because they had too legally, but acting like affairs didn't happen, that couples always supported one another and everything else in the vows just isn't true.

 

Most Generation X/millennials grew up if not with divorced parents, than with lots of other divorced adults in their life. From what I've seen, most young people marry for much better reasons than any generation before them. Again there are some huge differences across demographics, but i'm proud to say that most of my peers have been married, 5, 10, 15 years and only a very small percentage have gotten divorced.

 

And you're missing the point. I'm not trying to say marriage is perfect, but the alternative is to not get married. I don't know where you find reliable statistics, but what are the odds that two people who live together and don't marry stay together until death? I guarantee you it's a lot less than 50%.

[GunslingerRoland]

 

I don't know where you have your statistics from but when custody is challenged (when the parents don't agree on the custodial format) more than 90% of the cases it is given to the mother. In some states like Nebraska the 72% of the divorced fathers got to see their kids 5 days per month. (Please see the statistic Dealing With Unjust Custody Laws: Part I | Men's Divorce)

 

.

 

A site named mensdivorce may have an agenda. Notice how they cherry pick statistics from a state like Nebraska (37th largest population) to make a point.

[fenix]

Yes there are a lot of factors that have changed relationships especially marriages. Many of them, like laws that state that woman are people too, are very good things, and shouldn't be so easily dismissed.

I totally in agreement with any law that protect women and their rights while it is not to the cost of men like the existing divorce laws or the children support (even when it is not your biological son you are obliged to pay child support for it if you have recognised him on good faith that your wife would not do that to you)

Laws to protect women---> YES!

Laws to protect men----> where are they? Can you give me one only example in the divorce law or in the child support calculations where the welfare of men is being taken in consideration?

 

 

Don't confuse alimony with child support. If a woman gets full custody of course she will get more money, you are a parent, you clearly must know it costs money to raise a child right?

 

Yes sorry, i confused alimony with child support. And while I agree that the father should be helping economically to rise the children what I don't agree is that the mother is the one that manages that money without having to report to the father where the money has been expended.

 

And yeah typically custody is half half or something similar unless there is a reason for it to be otherwise.

 

Can you provide any statistic that support this? This is totally incorrect!

 

40-50% of marriages end in divorce. That is far too many, but it still isn't more than half.

 

Can you provide any statistic to support this? Again.. is talking for talking... 50% to 75% of marriages end up in divorce.

 

And while I agree with the majority of what you are saying about love, I'm sorry but yes it is blind nostalgia. People didn't live up their marriage vows. They stayed married because they had too legally, but acting like affairs didn't happen, that couples always supported one another and everything else in the vows just isn't true.

 

Most Generation X/millennials grew up if not with divorced parents, than with lots of other divorced adults in their life. From what I've seen, most young people marry for much better reasons than any generation before them. Again there are some huge differences across demographics, but i'm proud to say that most of my peers have been married, 5, 10, 15 years and only a very small percentage have gotten divorced.

Around 50% of X/millennials are unmarried (check above statistics)

 

And you're missing the point. I'm not trying to say marriage is perfect, but the alternative is to not get married. I don't know where you find reliable statistics, but what are the odds that two people who live together and don't marry stay together until death? I guarantee you it's a lot less than 50%.

 

No, you are missing the point, if you live together your economical risk as man is much lower... it is possible that you won't end up together but at today's rate getting married doesn't give you any security of that either... and when your relationship is over ... what is yours is yours and what is hers is hers...

[fenix]

A site named mensdivorce may have an agenda. Notice how they cherry pick statistics from a state like Nebraska (37th largest population) to make a point.

 

It is still the 72% of that state divorces that end up with the fathers only seeing 5 days a month to their children... how does it make it less bleeding painful?

[Gaeta]

 

Alimony is always a duty of the non custody holder towards the children (I have no issues with the father taking care of the children costs but the problem is that the custody holder gets to decide how to manage that money and it is most of the cases not 100% in the children)

 

I don't know where you have your statistics from but when custody is challenged (when the parents don't agree on the custodial format) more than 90% of the cases it is given to the mother. In some states like Nebraska the 72% of the divorced fathers got to see their kids 5 days per month. (Please see the statistic Dealing With Unjust Custody Laws: Part I | Men's Divorce)

 

 

The tendency in marriages is not for nothing decreasing... there are other formats for cohabitation, in Europe it is almost as normal to see a couple living together as seeing someone marrying.

 

Most marriages end up in Divorce, that is a fact and telling so to my son is not bringing any poison but objectivity in his choice. Loving someone doesn't mean marrying someone, you can love and live together with someone and choose to do so every day of your life.

 

You should not care about Nebraska laws if you don't live there.

 

That is why you should pick wisely who you marry. I was always known as a fair person, my ex-H knew me as a fair woman, when we divorced I continued being a fair woman. I actually signed everything over to him and I left with nothing. He dated me 3 years and got to really know me before marrying me and he knew he had nothing to fear during our divorce.

 

If you marry someone that has a history of taking their ex to the cleaner than....too bad for you for not using good judgement.

 

If you marry a woman you want home all of her life to raise YOUR kids than yes expect you'll have to support her after a divorce. It's what we call fair.

 

Just use common sense.

 

I am 50 years old, I would like to remarry. If I do I will have a prenup because I have properties already I want my daughter to keep. My BF has been in 2 common law relationships of 10 years. I know both times they split amicably, he is in good terms with both of them still, this is the type of man that won't try to take me to the cleaner if we marry.

 

Just good old common sense.

[fenix]

 

Just good old common sense.

 

I can agree with this! It looks like your boyfriend also knows what he wants as his last two relationship were in common law and not marriage...

 

For me common sense in today's day would be just living together and not marrying. That is good old common sense too .

 

Most of the people who marry a woman or a men are doing it thinking that is the person they want to share their life with... they all think that is a good person and won't cross you over... till it happen.

[GunslingerRoland]

People who get married today have a 40-50% chance of getting divorced at some point. Google it, but obviously it's not a sure thing, because we can't see the future. Those 70% statistics are based on people who got married in the 70's. That was a very different time. Marriage and relationships have evolved a lot since then.

 

And yes, most people wait longer to get married, that isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing. It means people are being more thoughtful in their choices. Because inspite of what you seem to believe, when your ancestors got married at 18 it wasn't for the right reasons.

 

Also don't underrate the financial risk you take living with someone without getting married. If you have children you will still have to pay child support. Depending on the jurisdiction you may also be on the hook to pay alimony.

 

I don't disagree that child support isn't a perfect system by any means. There are clearly people who get child support from their spouse, and neglect their child to use it for themselves. Similarly there are many people who dodge child support. That is a separate conversation though. I still think child support is important and necessary though.

 

You can't say that on the one hand you are favor of any law that protects women but on the other hand believe that in a divorce a woman should walk out the door with her clothes on her back and it should be called a day. I'm exaggerating obviously, and again I'm not saying that it's a perfect system. But there needs to be accounting for the fact that still even in 2016 sometimes people play different roles in the household economy and that needs to be accounted for in divorces.

[Woggle]

I married because my wife wanted and agreed to a good prenup. I would have been perfectly happy without the paper.

[Gaeta]

I can agree with this! It looks like your boyfriend also knows what he wants as his last two relationship were in common law and not marriage...

 

For me common sense in today's day would be just living together and not marrying. That is good old common sense too .

 

Most of the people who marry a woman or a men are doing it thinking that is the person they want to share their life with... they all think that is a good person and won't cross you over... till it happen.

 

My BF has talked to me about marrying me. Yes, at 49 he can finally see himself trusting a woman.

 

I got married at 20 years old because it was more traditional and religious. Today I don't care about the religious part but about the legal part. As I explained not because I fear the negative sides of a divorce but I fear if one of us dies the other one will be left with nothing.

 

If you live common law with a woman for 20 years and you suddenly die, you think it's fair for her she'll get nothing and no say in your funeral? You think it's fair your family will have rights over the house you lived together in for 20 years?

 

Like I said, the marriage is not important while you live, it's in death that it's important to be married.

[fenix]

People who get married today have a 40-50% chance of getting divorced at some point. Google it, but obviously it's not a sure thing, because we can't see the future. Those 70% statistics are based on people who got married in the 70's. That was a very different time. Marriage and relationships have evolved a lot since then.

 

And yes, most people wait longer to get married, that isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing. It means people are being more thoughtful in their choices. Because inspite of what you seem to believe, when your ancestors got married at 18 it wasn't for the right reasons.

 

Also don't underrate the financial risk you take living with someone without getting married. If you have children you will still have to pay child support. Depending on the jurisdiction you may also be on the hook to pay alimony.

 

I don't disagree that child support isn't a perfect system by any means. There are clearly people who get child support from their spouse, and neglect their child to use it for themselves. Similarly there are many people who dodge child support. That is a separate conversation though. I still think child support is important and necessary though.

 

You can't say that on the one hand you are favor of any law that protects women but on the other hand believe that in a divorce a woman should walk out the door with her clothes on her back and it should be called a day. I'm exaggerating obviously, and again I'm not saying that it's a perfect system. But there needs to be accounting for the fact that still even in 2016 sometimes people play different roles in the household economy and that needs to be accounted for in divorces.

 

Here it is where I do not understand the feminist way of thinking... So women look for equal rights but not equal responsibility? Why should it be a different dynamic in a house hold for men and for women? Why should be the man the one who risk his economy? If I would be a woman I would not sing to be a dependent woman without an income of my own. But lets agree that it happens and some men find that also comfortable, I can accept that a staying home woman/men can get alimony because she/he has facilitated the career of the working one.

But why if two persons work and one makes more money than the other once you divorce you need to keep the level of expending of the other person as when you were married?

Again, I still don't see any benefit for men to get married.

 

It is not only that people wait longer to get married (they do) but a bigger percentage of people (specially men) choose not to get married. There is a 20% increase men older than 40 that have never been married.

[fenix]

My BF has talked to me about marrying me. Yes, at 49 he can finally see himself trusting a woman.

 

I got married at 20 years old because it was more traditional and religious. Today I don't care about the religious part but about the legal part. As I explained not because I fear the negative sides of a divorce but I fear if one of us dies the other one will be left with nothing.

 

If you live common law with a woman for 20 years and you suddenly die, you think it's fair for her she'll get nothing and no say in your funeral? You think it's fair your family will have rights over the house you lived together in for 20 years?

 

Like I said, the marriage is not important while you live, it's in death that it's important to be married.

 

have you ever heard about testament?

[Gaeta]

have you ever heard about testament?

 

Once you are dead the living decide for you, even if you have a testament. A testament can easily be contested by family, marriage cannot. My daughter happens to be a mortician, she has conducted many funerals in concerts with family, notaries, lawyers, and the living decides. If you have put in your testament you want to be cremated and your family decide you won't be, then you won't be. Testaments are contested all the time especially when you have a lot of money and your kids think it's unfair you leave everything to your new 30 year younger girlfriend. Rest assured, family will win.

[GunslingerRoland]

Keep in mind woman can and often do make more than men. Women are graduating college at a way higher rate than men right now. So kids not withstanding your son might be as likely or more to be the one getting alimony if he eventually gets divorced.

 

In cases where there are two working adults and no children there usually isn't much if any alimony. There are also no man vs. woman distinctions. It's just the fact that the women are much more likely to take years off to look after the kids, or be a stay at home partner.

 

Here, read an unbiased site on alimony and child support: Alimony (Spousal Support) - CanadianDivorceLaws.com

 

I know it's Canadian and you aren't, but our laws are more consistent across the country than yours so it's easier to follow.

[fenix]

Once you are dead the living decide for you, even if you have a testament. A testament can easily be contested by family, marriage cannot. My daughter happens to be a mortician, she has conducted many funerals in concerts with family, notaries, lawyers, and the living decides. If you have put in your testament you want to be cremated and your family decide you won't be, then you won't be. Testaments are contested all the time especially when you have a lot of money and your kids think it's unfair you leave everything to your new 30 year younger girlfriend. Rest assured, family will win.

 

that is if you are afraid your family will contest it... as much sure as you are about your bf, so sure I am about that my family will do right by my wishes..

[eightytwenty]

You do not need to marry someone to commit for life and marrying someone doesn't mean commitment for life (that is sadly the whole point of the post... as most marriages will end in divorce).

 

 

I fully aware that I don't need to marry anyone for the commitment for life. But if they are saying they will stay till the end, why not marry? Why not have that promise with marriage? Why would I trust a man that wouldn't walk down the aisle in front of his friends and family to say he'll be with me till the end of his days. It's a promise in front of God, family, and friends that we are promising that we will be there for each other forever, we aren't a we anymore, we are one.

 

Why any man will choose to give you the half of what he has and to pay you alimony while you keep his children away from him?

 

 

Why in the world would I keep his child away from him? Only way I would ever do that if he somehow he went crazy! How does alimony mean anything when you can get child support when you aren't married to them, if you talking in terms of the child support... I make as much as he does, he wouldn't be paying anything to me.

Edited December 20, 2016 by eightytwenty

[basil67]

Fenix, you keep talking about the advantages of being common law. My partner and I are common law but our union is recognised by the state. If we had an acrimonious breakup, we'd have to go through the family court under the same rules as a couple who formally married.

 

As common law continues to become more utilized, more states will gradually come on board with the legalities of the partnership. If for no other reason than for the sake of any children born from that union.

 

What then?

[Gr8fuln2020]

It's funny how history tends to bite the arse of those who long tried to control it for themselves.

 

Yes, today's custody laws do tend to favor women, but that is b/c, traditionally, and still is for the most part, women were the ones relegated to taking care of the children while men went off to work, or more likely to be SAHM. So, women, as it still happens today, are often w/o adequate employment/income after a divorce and more likely to be the one to nurture the children. Should the laws be less black/white and more case by case, heck yah! Some states are working in that direction. The laws, as they mostly stand, are laws created with TRADITIONAL considerations.

 

I am a single father with sole custody and I love it! Our numbers are growing, but still the minority in many ways. At this point in my life, I am seeking a LTR with a mature, fit, sexy woman and not a mother for my children. Marriage is not necessary. But, as Gaeta says, the legal implications loom large in most states in terms of inheritance, support, etc. I can see why people value the institution of marriage solely based on legal considerations.

[fenix]

I fully aware that I don't need to marry anyone for the commitment for life. But if they are saying they will stay till the end, why not marry? Why not have that promise with marriage? Why would I trust a man that wouldn't walk down the aisle in front of his friends and family to say he'll be with me till the end of his days. It's a promise in front of God, family, and friends that we are promising that we will be there for each other forever, we aren't a we anymore, we are one.

 

I am not religious so I do not care about promises in front of God and you don't need to walk down the aisle in front of your friends to say you will be together till the end, you can make a party without adding the legal part of it....

Why in the world would I keep his child away from him? Only way I would ever do that if he somehow he went crazy! How does alimony mean anything when you can get child support when you aren't married to them, if you talking in terms of the child... I make as much as he does, he wouldn't be paying anything to me.

 

This isn't personal against you, this is about general issues of getting married and divorced as a man, it is a fact that many women use their children as bargain for the divorce and if the decision on the divorce is his... even worse!

 

Since child custody in the majority of the contested cases go to the women child support will go that direction too... but the man has not saying on how that money is expended ...

[GorillaTheater]

It sounds like marriage is irrelevant to your concerns, and that the real issue is whether to have kids, married or not.

[fenix]

Fenix, you keep talking about the advantages of being common law. My partner and I are common law but our union is recognised by the state. If we had an acrimonious breakup, we'd have to go through the family court under the same rules as a couple who formally married.

 

As common law continues to become more utilized, more states will gradually come on board with the legalities of the partnership. If for no other reason than for the sake of any children born from that union.

 

What then?

 

Then I will recommend LAT (living apart together) relationship... either divorce law changes or men will be marrying less and less. Look, everyone here looks to be against my logic bu the sad thing is that the facts are following my logic.

Today's men do not want to marry... I have seen 1000's of post of women complaining about lack of commitment from their boyfriends and the point keep being that there is too much risk at stake, divorce is as much of a reality as marriage is and more people is aware of it.

[basil67]

It sounds like marriage is irrelevant to your concerns, and that the real issue is whether to have kids, married or not.

 

I'm also wondering if he supports the idea of common law parents not contributing to the welfare of the child after the parents separate.

[basil67]

Then I will recommend LAT (living apart together) relationship... either divorce law changes or men will be marrying less and less. Look, everyone here looks to be against my logic bu the sad thing is that the facts are following my logic.

Today's men do not want to marry... I have seen 1000's of post of women complaining about lack of commitment from their boyfriends and the point keep being that there is too much risk at stake, divorce is as much of a reality as marriage is and more people is aware of it.

 

And how would this make a good environment for raising children?

 

And how to afford to have two dwellings? (I live in a city where median house prices are now around the $1million mark)