Author Topic: What the Constitutional Amendment Oughta Be (Read 906 times)

Hortlund · « **Reply #15 on:** February 26, 2004, 01:07:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
They will need to agree to a contract with each other. Let them make their own arrangements.

Yes, the women will love you for that...you just set back the equality between the sexes about 100 years.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 26, 2004, 01:08:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Yes, the women will love you for that...you just set back the equality between the sexes about 100 years.

Why? Women and men are guaranteed equal treatment under the law.

Hortlund · « **Reply #17 on:** February 26, 2004, 01:13:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Why? Women and men are guaranteed equal treatment under the law.

Yes, but in ye average relationship, the woman will have children. If the woman has children and stays home from work, while the man works, you will soon have an imbalance in income and wealth.

Marriage cures this by having the spouses share their economy (not exactly sure how that looks in the US legal system though, but it is fairly complicated over here) thus, even though the man might "own" 70-80% of the wealth in a relationship, the woman is entitled to half.

In your version, you will just leave the woman trailing behind the man, something opening up some very uncomfortable situations where the wife might become totally dependent on the husband.

etc

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 26, 2004, 01:15:58 PM »

She will be as dependent as she allows for in the contract.

Hortlund · « **Reply #19 on:** February 26, 2004, 01:18:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
She will be as dependent as she allows for in the contract.

*shrug* IMO that is unfair, and like I said, a solution that would set back the equality between the sexes about 100 years.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 26, 2004, 01:19:14 PM »

It's unfair for two people to voluntarily agree on a contract which establishes a partnership?

Hortlund · « **Reply #21 on:** February 26, 2004, 01:25:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
It's unfair for two people to voluntarily agree on a contract which establishes a partnership?

Yes, because when entering into that contract, the parties are probably not starting at a similar level. Rich guy wants to enter into contract with (sounds romantic too huh) poor girl, rich guy dictates contract, or else poor girl can find soemone else.

Or middle-class guy enters contract with middle-class girl with the terms that everyone keeps what they earn etc, girl has 3 kids, miss years and years at work and is passed over for promotion countless times, meanwhile guy works hard. 15 years later guy is rich girl is poor. Guy starts to boss girl around, threatening to throw her out of the house (that he bought because he was the one making money) unless she does this or that...girl stuck with desicion to either stay in slave-like relationship or move to shabby apartment...kids will stay with rich dad.

It isnt fair, its not even remotely close to fair even.

And while most lawyers would probably build shrines to worship you at, because of all new work they would get, I'd have to say that you offer a not-ideal solution. To put it diplomatically.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 26, 2004, 01:47:40 PM »

Hortlund it's totally voluntary and the woman is free to negotiate terms in her favor which prohibit the situations you describe. If she doesn't like the terms she can choose a different partner. If she is foolish enough to make a contract which hurts her then it is her fault, her problem. Caveat emptor.

Tarmac · « **Reply #23 on:** February 26, 2004, 01:50:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Yes, because when entering into that contract, the parties are probably not starting at a similar level. Rich guy wants to enter into contract with (sounds romantic too huh) poor girl, rich guy dictates contract, or else poor girl can find soemone else.

Or middle-class guy enters contract with middle-class girl with the terms that everyone keeps what they earn etc, girl has 3 kids, miss years and years at work and is passed over for promotion countless times, meanwhile guy works hard. 15 years later guy is rich girl is poor. Guy starts to boss girl around, threatening to throw her out of the house (that he bought because he was the one making money) unless she does this or that...girl stuck with desicion to either stay in slave-like relationship or move to shabby apartment...kids will stay with rich dad.

It isnt fair, its not even remotely close to fair even.

And while most lawyers would probably build shrines to worship you at, because of all new work they would get, I'd have to say that you offer a not-ideal solution. To put it diplomatically.

You do realize that the above situation could be addressed with a bit of forethought... through a contract.

Hortlund · « **Reply #24 on:** February 26, 2004, 01:59:10 PM »

Like I said, that does not mean anything. Even though both parties are equal "on paper" that is rarely the case de facto.

And like I said, this doesnt change the fact that your solution would set back the equality between the sexes with 100 years.

MrLars · « **Reply #25 on:** February 26, 2004, 02:09:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by vorticon
so how do athiests get married?

Civil service....no mention of any 'COD' worked for me.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 26, 2004, 02:25:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund

And like I said, this doesnt change the fact that your solution would set back the equality between the sexes with 100 years.

You have yet to demonstrate that.

Tarmac · « **Reply #27 on:** February 26, 2004, 02:25:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Like I said, that does not mean anything. Even though both parties are equal "on paper" that is rarely the case de facto.

And like I said, this doesnt change the fact that your solution would set back the equality between the sexes with 100 years.

I still don't get how it would set back equality of the sexes 100 years. It would put both parties on equal ground in the relationship - any inequality would be consensual (or maybe what you see as inequality may not be seen as inequality between the two involved).

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 26, 2004, 02:35:54 PM »

I don't see it either Tarmac. I'm thinking it's either language barrier or some type of cultural difference between the USA and Sweden.

vorticon · « **Reply #29 on:** February 26, 2004, 04:24:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
However they want.

what your suggesting would remove government marriages...therefore athiests wouldent be able to marry without going to a priest...throwing them in the same boat as the gays...
what we need is a definition that allows gays to get married but lets the church do it how they want as well...

how is it wrong for liberals to tell you you cant buy a assault rifle but allright for you to tell them gays cant get married...the only difference is the church backs one of them. and honestly the bible specifically states no divorce but thats practically become the norm. so what the church think really only effects those in the church.