Divorce is an abomination full stop. There’s no such thing as domestic violence. If you marry DeShawn from the ghetto or a Padraig the drunkard that’s your own fucking fault and you should pay the toll, Charlene.
However let’s be good little moderates for a minute and pretend to accept divorce.
The fact that a man must pay his wife after a divorce for the rest of her life even WHEN THEY DID NOT HAVE CHILDREN is an abomination.
In Russia a man is only supposed to pay for the child until the child is 19 if the parents divorce. Once the child is 19 that’s it- the ex wife doesn’t get a penny. If the child is a dead beat well they don’t get a penny either. There’s none of this “lifestyle she’s become accustomed to” crap like there is in America and bongland (although perhaps in a twist of irony, the divorce case that decided a man must pay for his wife for the rest of her life in England was two russian oligarchs divorcing in which they had no kids and the man wanted to pay nothing- as would be the case in Russia given they had no kids- and the wife wanted everything hahaha).
The Jews intentionally created this situation. A man can not risk marrying in our modern society because his wife will get bored, claim he beat her, he will then be out the house immediately, she’ll then file for divorce, she’ll get his house and half his bank account. All his assets. If he’s worked hard and has a boat or a plane that will be hers even if she was a prositutte in the street when he met her.
In some shitholes like France and Germany, the man has to pay for his child for the rest of their life too. Even the fucking bongs aren’t that cucked!
The Jews did this because knowing everything a man worked for will be taken the moment the ex wife gets bored means that men simply won’t marry.
Of course this means that Whites don’t reproduce.
Jews destroy society and we must eradicate them tbhtbhngl.
Idk seems most people have no issue making kids with or without marriage, the marriage part is irrelevant and I've noticed younger people men and women both are much less interested in getting married. Nearly all the people in their mid 20s to mid 30s without kids feel they can't afford them and/or both people in the relationship are working full time to be able to pay their living expenses and still have some savings. I think white women are just less into multigenerational housing culturally so most white women think longterm ie government will help pay their way while they're popping out kids but what happens when they can't have any more kids. Whereas black and hispanic people culturally still find multigenerational housing quite normal so women from those cultures will still readily have kids without a husband and then the adult kids just keep living with her and help pay bills through her elder years.
Nobody will marry you anyway so you're safe.
It's a cold day in hell, and pigs are flying somewhere, but I agree with you.
Don't go telling the truth so blatantly, they will punish you for it.
Tying the Knot in the Age of Marriage 2.0 https://weddedabyss.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/marriage20/
Before you take the plunge there are a few things about marriage that you need to be aware of. The institution of marriage as we know it is no more. It has undergone drastic changes in the last 50 years. What used to be a life long commitment, unbreakable barring the most severe circumstances, has been legislated into something entirely new thanks to the lobbying efforts of radical feminists and the divorce industry. In trying to make divorce “fail-safe” for women they have made marriage “unsafe” for everyone.
Marriage today is a temporary union of two individuals where the exit costs are highly asymmetrical. What does that mean? It means that upon the dissolution of the marriage, one spouse (mothers) makes off like a bandit, while the other (Fathers) is pushed into a life of unending poverty, abridged civil rights, and being two paychecks away from arrears, contempt, and prison.
If someone is made to suffer like that upon the divorce, you probably think that he/she deserved it. Perhaps they were a terrible spouse? Perhaps they cheated? If only this was so. Karma, you see, has nothing to do with it. That was the case during the olden days of “fault-only” divorce when the spouse who was at fault for wrecking the marriage got penalized during the divorce. With those old divorces , if the at-fault party was the higher-earning spouse, they were made to pay alimony and surrender many marital assets over to the wronged party. Similarly, if the at-fault party was the homemaker/lower-earner spouse, then they were made to forfeit any alimony and forced to accept a smaller share of the martial assets. Morality was a big factor in who made out better and who made out worse.
Enter Marriage 2.0
During the second half of the 20th century all of the ground rules governing marriage were changed. The laws were changed to such an extent that that we can no longer call it “marriage” as it was known through the millennia. We have to distinguish this mutated institution with a new name. We will call it Marriage 2.0.
Today all that stuff about the moral carrot and stick is out of the window. Basically the higher-earner spouse is always at-fault (i.e. made to hand over assets and pay alimony), and the lower-earner spouse is always the “innocent one” (i.e. gets most of the assets and a cut of the ex’s future salaries). It doesn’t matter if the lower-earner spouse was the one having an affair or is the one filing the divorce. Therein lies the problem with modern family laws. You can be the best breadwinner spouse in the world, take good care of your wife, and stay true to your marriage vows, and you will still get shafted in the divorce. It’s a suckers bet for the good guy.
Here are some things working against you, when you are the primary breadwinner spouse within Marriage 2.0, and your wife decides to walk out (cash out?) on you:
Women Filing Majority of Divorces – 75% of all divorces are now filed by wives. Publications like Cosmo love to harp on men for having a “fear of commitment”. Guys must ask themselves, why commit when it’s the other party who can’t live up to the commitment 3/4 of the time?
Unilateral Divorce – This is also known as no-fault divorce, with no recourse for men. There is nothing you can do legally speaking to stop a divorce.
Domestic Violence Fraud : Men presumed guilty until proven innocent DV laws are now widely used as the “opening chess move” of many divorces against innocent fathers. Once the husband is removed from the primary residence he never comes back, and she gets the primary residence in the asset split. Also known as the Federal VAWA Legislation, this new unconstitutional law has been fraudulently misused by divorcing spouses ever since it came out. There are no equivalent laws to protect men in abusive situations.
Decriminalization of Adultery – Adultery is no longer a crime. However the failure to pay alimony to an adulterous spouse is. Go figure.
Losing Custody of Children – Custody of the children is most often awarded to the female in family courts. Basically this amounts to: Goodbye Daddy, hello ATM.
No enforcement of Visitation Rights – States enforce payment obligations by fathers with an iron fist, however they don’t lift a finger to enforce the other side of the bargain, which is the visitation rights of fathers. If you are going to police one parent’s obligation to pay, why not police the female’s obligation to allow regular meaningful access to the children?
Children as Cashcows – The National Organization for Women (NOW) has been continuously lobbying against Shared Parenting bills in many states. Why would NOW do that? What is more equal than shared parenting? The reason is that NOW’s brand of feminism is no longer about equality, but about a zero-sum game for resources. Children are cash-cows, and NOW will be damned if they allow Shared Parenting to stop the cash-flow.
No-Fault Alimony – In many states, fault is no longer a factor in awarding alimony. So there are plenty of cases of “spouse-A cheats, but spouse-B pays”. In what other area of contract law does the party breaking the contract gets paid, and the innocent party gets punished? Only in Marriage 2.0!
One Sided Alimony: Ok so the ex-wife got used to a certain standard of living, so we will make the ex-husband pay alimony. Fine. But how about the things the ex-husband got used to? Do men have a right to be “accustomed” to stuff too? If not, why not? Shouldn’t there be some sort of reciprocal reverse-alimony payment by the ex-wife in the form of weekly cleaning, a hot meal 7 nights a week, and “romantic companionship” services for the ex-husband? How come one spouse is obligated to provide something that the other was used to during the marriage, and the female isn’t obligated to provide anything?
Lifetime Alimony – Contrary to common belief, Alimony isn’t on its way out. There was a period in the 1970’s when no-fault laws were first enacted when a few states put limitations on how/when it could be awarded. However since then there have been a concerted effort by powers that be such as the influential American Law Institute (ALI) for bringing alimony back in a big way. Here is a New York Times article covering the release of a landmark 2002 ALI report which recommended broadening and deepening alimony awards across all 50 states. Right on queue there are now reports of alimony horror stories coming out from many states where the breadwinner Fathers are ordered to pay lifetime alimony. There are also cases like the on in this Wall Street Journal article where long settled divorce cases are re-opened and modified under the new pro-alimony paradigms. Paul Taylor featured in the WSJ story had his ex-wife take him back to court in 2009, three decades after their original 1982 divorce when both parties had agreed to waive all past/present/future alimony. The court reversed that original 1982 divorce judgment and awarded lifetime alimony to the ex-wife. It was ordered that this new alimony be deducted out of Paul Taylor’s pension and paid monthly to a woman he hadn’t even seen in three decades. Mr. Taylor is now in bankruptcy and can look forward to spending his golden years working as a Greeter in Wal-Mart. Equality in action?
Paternity Fraud – If you didn’t catch right away that your kids aren’t really your kids but instead were “sired” by some guy that your wife was having an affair with, you are out of luck. What’s worse if your cheating wife divorces you, you can bring the DNA tests to court, and you will still be forced to pay 18-23 years of child support for these kids who are some other guy’s spawn, plus be made to pay for her lawyer as well as your own AND pay for all the associated costs for the DNA test. Read this case of the Toronto man forced to pay child-support for twins that even the court acknowledged are not his but ordered him to keep paying anyway. In no other area of the law do we punish the innocent victim for the conduct of two other people
Even more shocking is a New York Times article about a Pennsylvania man ordered to keep paying child support after his adulterous wife divorced him, and married the very guy she had the affair and conceived the child with. Today the bio-father, the ex-wife, and their bio-child live together under a single roof as a biologically intact family and guess who is still paying them monthly child support? Yes, the cuckold ex-husband still has to pay every month or go to jail. You can’t make this stuff up. Even cuckold porn doesn’t get this vile.
Conclusion
Marriage 2.0 is a very unequal contract where the legal power balance both within the marriage and after the divorce is heavily biased against the Father. Given that this is today’s legal reality why would you want to sign such a one sided contract? There are simply no benefits in marriage for the males under these Marriage 2.0 rules. None whatsoever. Ask yourself now: “What is in it for me?”. If the above hasn’t yet convinced you to avoid this mutated institution that has become a giant legal trap for men, then you owe it to yourself to keep learning more about the risks of saying “I do”.
Natural order (inception towards death) sets those within apart (life), those within tempt each other together aka wedlock (marriage) which natural order continuously diverts (divorce).
Sleight of hand for those with eyes to see..."till death do us part".
Are you real?
a) fiction (suggested information) represents ones ignorance of reality (perceivable inspiration).
b) if words are real; than is that which words are used to describe more or less real?
c) what does it imply about self to ask others for confirmation about reality?
d) to show implies suggesting towards the view of others...is there a view (perception) before others can make a show (suggestion) out of it?
That out of the way...consider the difference between show (suggesting others) and shower (to bestow liberally). What if perceivable is bestowed liberally upon each ones perception; while others tempt one with suggestions to ignore that?
e) consider alleged fumigation of few (zyklon B) with confirmed fumigation of many (cigarettes; cigars; vapes, engine exhaust; formaldehyde fumigation in hospitals; pest control during food processing etc.)...
He is a fucking moron.
I'm additon to divorce being hated by God..remarriage is ADULTERY..and. NO adulterer has any inheritance in the Kingdom of God Just because the state says you can divorce or have abortions does not mean God does